A first look at NZFS and replacing unRAID with NZFS’s Transparent RAID (tRAID) - Page 7

Yes.

http://www.mymovies.dk/products/windows-media-center.aspx

Another thing I like better about it is you can map multiple discs to the same title. I can map both the 2D and 3D (or extras or multi part discs) to the same movie so when you hit Play it will pop up a menu asking for the disc you wish to play. It also deals with TMT better than MB in my case.

And they have a WHS2011 and WS2012Ess catalog dashboard app.

...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:29pm

hmmm....

That is sorta cool. I prefer the look of my set up but I don't make use of the back art. Thanks for the share.

I guess my solution for mutiple copies is top level menus.

For instance:

Jaws or Jurrassic Park collections I have mutiple copies. Some DVD, some Bluray, some other collections I have 3D and 2D. I just make a seperate movie folder for each version. Then place them all inside the top level folder.

For instance:



inside that I have all the different versions of the movies, as well as part 2,3 etc...

I find it works pretty well because it only takes up a single folder or item on the top level. And inside I might have many. This versus say 5 slots occupied on the top level. If I want to watch any of them I just choose the Jurrassic Park collection first then the version I want.

I do edit this or that.. manually when needed.

And manually set up my collections and nested folders too.

But for 90% of the time it saves me trouble. Especially on newer or more popular releases.

I used MB for a couple years and just switched to MyMovies. You can make the interface look different than what is shown, not sure mine even matches any of those screenshots. Worth the free trial IMO. However, there is a bit of a learning curve since things are handled differently than with MB.

Anyway, I'll stop since this is off topic for NZFS. Everyone can get back to unraid vs. flexraid.

I am not sure this thread was about that. I think FlexRaid makes a pretty compelling argument and advantage over unraid. If I was starting new I'm not sure I'd see any advantage in unraid except perhaps cost.
I understand some people already have it, or don't want to pay for flexraid. That makes sense not to go through the trouble of switching if your already up and running and happy.

But starting fresh- I'm not sure I'd ever choose unraid myself. It's not just the performance issue. It's not just the fact with Flexraid your data is readable on any disc or that you can add full drives.
I think it's just in general about everything.

I also think this thread was about how the new next generation zion files system (NZFS) is coming and what advantages it has over unraid and flexraid. Mostly that is real time versus snap shot, and increased performance over unraid.

Remember, FlexRAID no longer means that current product. It is the family of products. We'll have to start saying RAID-F instead.

http://www.openegg.org/2013/02/21/flexraids-raid-f-vs-nzfs/

I hate that. I like calling flexraid well... Flexraid.

lol.

I've called it that since I bought it. It's going to be hard to stop.

Eh? Care to explain this? I'm not up on my FlexRAID lingo, but is RAID-F the standard snapshot RAID? Data is on one drive, not read in parallel. In a striping RAID 0 scenario, your speed is only limited by the parallel rotational speeds of mechanical disks x the number of disks. This is not what FlexRAID does. Even in your ideal random access example, read/write speeds will always be limited to the speed of one drive.

This is pretty disingenuous... speeds will only approach maximum throughput if the "randomness" is tied to a single operation per drive. This is not random, but a staged benchmark. If you have 3 data drives, then you can only ever get maximum throughput if 3 operations are hitting 3 separate drives. This takes away from the pooling aspect of FlexRAID in that you don't have to care which drive is serving the operation. In a true RAID 0 setup, speeds are consistent across nearly all true random operations.

I had related questions:
The more I think, the more some of claims made by OP are starting to sound really odd. Let's take this "no need for cache drive in traid" claim: I would make a claim that tRaid (FlexRaid) cannot achieve any higher write speed than UnRaid when it is doing online parity calculation. Unless FlexRaid is doing parity calculation very differently, the actual calculation is a very simple XOR over the bits of different drives (see here). And to be able to write a single bit to a single disk, the system must first read the bit from both the target disk and parity to determine what the parity bit should be (well actually the parity bit is read only in order to be able to flip it when necessary). And if is not doing online parity calculation then the data is unprotected until next scheduled parity update which is exactly the same as with UnRaid's cache drive.

I also agree with Puwaha that claims about better performance compared to a single drive in any operation are just pure misinformation. The only way to achieve higher throughput/IOPS is to have the data striped to multiple disks and tRaid/FlexRaid does not seem to do that.
Edited by henris - 2/22/13 at 11:21pm

Unraid has definite advantages for a first time setup. There are clear instructions on how to create it on a flash drive. I could walk technologically illiterate old people through it. I would be hard pressed to walk them through a windows and flexraid install. The install is also much much quicker.

If the plugins available meet your needs then it is actually easier to install programs on Unraid than on Windows. Other programs can be added it just gets harder. There are walkthroughs on installing virtualbox to put Windows on the same box.

The performance differences are only with writes(write once read many), reads are the exact same. Flexraid RT has slower writes just like Unraid. The write speeds are still fast enough to rip multiple blu-rays at the same time. I'm still hoping to get an answer about writes speeds in Traid.

Real-time has the advantage in that your data is protected as soon as you write it.

One less hdd to buy/run with Unraid.

You can build an 8TB(12TB?) array without having to buy the software with Unraid.

I don't think you can go wrong with either product.

It's kind of like comparing two ugly chicks at a bar. They both have good and bad things about them but as you keep drinking more you eventually don't really care! The end result is basically the same either way, it's just a matter of taste. Which one has less of a hunchback?

I couldn't agree more. It seems that some of us are more concerned about performance, data backup, and transfer rates than the way a media server is actually used. If you've got an entire household trying to access the server simultaneously and watch Blu-Rays or you've got a small office with lots of people transferring data back and forth then I can see the point. In my case, it's just me and the wife and she rarely, if ever, accesses the server for anything but watching an occasional home movie of the kids. The level of performance needed really isn't all that high for a small household with only one or two users. If you absolutely have to have the fastest server with the best protection, then by all means pursue the Holy Grail and be happy. All I know is that I have close to 1,000 movies on my server and I'll never be able to watch them all in my lifetime unless I shackle myself to a chair and watch them nonstop. There are just more important things in life than worrying about how fast you can transfer a file to and from a server. As long as I can get smooth playback from a Blu-Ray rip then I'm a happy camper. Anything else is just a bonus. If you're so anal that you have to see your transfers in real time then that's a personal problem, IMHO. As long as I can get it from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of time then I'm content. The point being that it's more than good enough for the intended purpose. Anything else is overkill, at least for me. Obviously, YMMV.

I laffed.

Too funny.

I am not sure I see the value here since I found flexraid easy to install. There is plenty of places to get information. Assassin has a flexraid guide that goes step by step with illustrations so even technologically illiterate fools could do it, and that's just the tip of the iceberg on information or support; there is a whole forum dedicated to the product and there is many users in many forums across the net. There is also a wiki page. And last you can email the developer directly with an advanced issue. Perhaps unraid might be a bit easier since it's not inside a windows type OS installation but honestly if you can't navigate a popular operating system in 2013 then what business do you have trying to install Flexraid ?

The type of people that buy or want flexraid know what they are doing. Why would you need a home server if you don't know much about PC ? I doubt you even know about flexraid in that case.

I'm a little surprised that there are very few videos on youtube when I search for flexraid. I was hoping to learn more about it there in a video in how it works, or how to set it up properly. I'm debating on using Flexraid or Storage Spaces, and I'm leaning more towards Storage Spaces now just because of the extra information out there. It seems like Flexraid is probably better all around, but I don't get the same warm and fuzzy I get when I don't see video's for a product that has been out for a while.

You're right. There needs to be many more of those action filled Flexraid videos out there.

I'd only use Storage Spaces for just pooling or mirroring. The parity usage is very slow.

Just tried flexRAID out of curiousity and could say I was very impressed by the transfer speeds...

I was running in cruise / real-time, and I witnessed sustained 85 - 90MB/s transfer speeds...

I tried to delete transferred files as this was only test the system for stability and the system went belly up...

The volume won't start anymore, it was impossible to uninstall the program, it kept asking to reconcile and the reconclie service never came to an end, I tried to uninstall and it kept comming with the error JETCallBacks.dll' failed - exit code 1 or so...

I found on the net somewhere the instruction to

Delete the install folder and then in a DOS prompt execute:

net stop "FlexRAID"
net stop "FlexRAID Disk Manager"

sc delete "FlexRAID Disk Manager"
sc delete FlexRAIDD

I rebooted re-installed the 2.0-Final_u11t5 version and when I start the flexRAID GUI it just shows a blank page...

The only really good thing is that the test copy data was available even after destroying the volume... quite impressive I would say...

But overall I am not confident enough to trust it with 10T+ of data...

It works great.

If you know how to work it.

That rings the consult my guide $$$ bell...

My storage rig is linux CentOS based with ZFS... never saw anything more stable...

I'm just building a new one for a friend with an IBM serveraid m1015 which aparently doesn't seem to play well with CentOS...

That is why I gave flexRAID a shot...

I'm going back to give whatever it takes to get the IBM card working with CentOS...

Based on his description of events, what do you think he did wrong to cause that type of situation?

Does CentOS like the card when flashed to LSI IT mode?

The card is actually in IT mode...

Only JBODS are presented to the OS...

I don't know about this. Sure, you can get unRAID up and going really quickly, but there's other things you're going to want/need to do (or know about). That's where it gets complicated, not necessarily because its all that complicated, but because you don't necessary know you have to do it.

• Want to actually be able to use the power button on your server case? It's still rather complicated to figure out what you have to do, despite the fact that the ACPI situation under Linux mostly stabilized a while ago.
• Want to follow everyone's advice and use a UPS? Great, but that's an add-on. I don't know to what extent that has gotten easier- I'm still on v4 personally- but as I understand it the v5 RCs still lack the long-promised plug-in manager.
• Want to copy a lot of small files at once? Have fun dealing with the errors (a SMB issue, I think, but I've never had this problem transferring between Windows boxes).
• Want to delete really large files over the network share? Due to the time it takes to delete files in ReiserFS, you're probably going to have to telnet in.
  
• Want to add a drive without taking down your server for an extended period of time? You can do that, but you need to know you have to use a plugin from the forums.
  
• Oh yeah, and have fun dealing with hardware compatibility issues.

For something that's been around for such a long time, I'd really expect unRAID to be more polished by now.

1. My power button works fine. I didn't even realize this was an issue.
2. The only concern with using an UPS is if you want Unraid to shutdown automatically when power fails. With unraid you really should get an APC UPS to make it easy. The plugin manager would be nice but isn't needed. Adding plugins is as simple as copy paste and a quick reboot or a quick installpkg command, chimp power.
3. I copy small files using SMB and I have never had any problems. This issue is probably quite a few years old(half a decade?) and not a real concern if you run the latest v5 release.
4. I just tried this b/c I didn't believe you. It took 5 seconds to delete a 4.5GB file. I really just deleted the file system.
5. Simple features is a nice plugin and is really easy to add. Copy paste.
6. Linux hardware issues boil down mainly to advanced graphics card issues and sound issues. Luckily you don't need either of those for Unraid. I've seen mention of some realtek NIC issues but an Intel NIC is best practice for a server anyways. I'm using a realtek NIC without issues. NIC = Network Interface Card

You are using an extremely old version of Unraid so expecting it to be more polished is kind of ridiculous. 4.7-final came out over 2 years ago, are you running something older than this? Maybe it's time to upgrade man, v5 is great.

There is nothing extra you have to do once you install Unraid. Spending 10 minutes adding extras is a good idea though.

The more I read this thread, the more I feel that unraid is a horrendously inferior and incompetent (to some levels) product...

Seriously?

At most it has a couple of features missing. Does Spectrum have 2 accounts?

There's entire threads on this in the unRAID forum. If you want the array to shut down cleaning with the power button the recommendation is to install the powerdown script. A version of this script is installed with APC UPS, although there's on-going discussions over whether that's sufficient. There's something included with stock unRAID too, although its even more unclear how safe that one is.

I'd really like to run a v5, but its still not final. Plus I've had a hard time getting information on how to do the upgrade (mostly when it comes to add-ons, like the powerdown script). A recent thread helps that, although several things are still unclear. I figure they'll probably get worked out and documented when the more novice users upgrade after v5-final is released.

4.5GB isn't really large. Try a 75GB drive image. It takes long time to delete a file that size when you're using the ReiserFS filesystem. If I remember correctly, about 45 seconds or so, which is long enough to cause a time out if you try to do from a Windows box over a network share.

This is where I disagree with you. You were basically saying unRAID is a piece of cake. I couldn't disagree more. There's a body of knowledge that long-time unRAID users have that isn't terribly well documented. Some of the things have on-going disagreements in the forums (powerdown script). Some things are missing features that should seem pretty standard (APC UPS support).

Stock unRAID is not good enough. That was really my point. Ease of use is not an advantage of unRAID.

Seriously...

Maybe you aren't making a compelling enough argument. A lot of the things you passed off as advantages of unraid seems more like huge drawbacks...

If I for some reason feel the need to use my power button I do a parity check when I restart(unraid automatically does a parity check in this case). What further needs done?

Automatic power down software has trouble in Windows also. This issue is not confined to unraid.

The base upgrade to v5 is well documented. There is a clean powerdown addon through unmenu for v5 but I haven't tested it. Upgrading really shouldn't be hard at all.

I've deleted 40GB files without any issue. Searching the unraid forums I didn't come up with much that was new enough to be relevant. An issue with 4.5.4 where having the drive filled up 85+% and trying to delete a 200GB file while not having enough memory. Another one with a simliar issue with 5.0b8 but there isn't much information. Were you able to find anything newer?

No matter how much money you spend on something or what you buy there is always a chance that you will have some problems. Unraid in its native form is perfectly fine. There really isn't any good reason to not install simplefeatures and unmenu though. With these unraid becomes a much more powerful product.

There's only 3 features that come to mind that I said are insignificant:

1. Windows... Insignificant. Unraid's install is very easy, but unconventional.

2. Move drive to different machine... Minor b/c you can do this with 3rd party free software.

3. Write speeds aren't as fast... For some people this seems to matter but for most the write speeds of Unraid are plenty fast enough.

How is this horrendously inferior?

The thread you found was probably mine. It's not a memory issue. It's not exactly a storage space one either, although files split into many fragments seem to be worse. Large files take a while to delete with the ReiserFS filesystem. As I said, it's not directly an unRAID issue- anything using ReiserFS would have that problem.

Upgrading to v4.7 didn't change the problem. I'll upgrade to v5 when its final (or switch to something like NZFS if that's finished first). If Tom is really convinced that's release-worthy then he would have marked one final. He keeps threatening to do it, but the fact that he hasn't tells me he's still not comfortable with it. Whatever bugs are plaguing him they must be fairly difficult, since its been almost a month since the last "RC."

Anyways, for now I'm tempted to agree unRAID is still the best choice for relatively advanced users that just want a fairly simple NAS. But if NZFS ever lives up to its hype I think you'd have a hard time making the case for unRAID over it. At least, assuming someone puts out a version on a bootable flash drive for people that just want a simple Linux-based server. In any event, I don't think unRAID is bad, but I do think its disappointing Tom hasn't done more (particularly when he acknowledges write speeds could be ~50% faster if he fixed up the code).
Edited by reggie14 - 2/23/13 at 8:31pm