A first look at NZFS and replacing unRAID with NZFS’s Transparent RAID (tRAID) - Page 11

I don't want to get too involved into this unraid vs flexraid mess but I'll chime in on this and say that I have emailed him directly and received adequate responses and support on several occasions during his "vanish" period from AVS.

Just because he does not visit a third party website daily doesn't mean you won't get support.

There is after all an entire flexraid forum that is monitored, and he has PM and personal email for matters of support. I'm not sure his presence on AVS or lack thereof is any indication of the support you'd receive unless your demanding support through AVS in which case you possibly could be left wanting.

I've been a member for a decade, but I can't say I have visiting regularly during the entire period either. I think it's cool he is here at all. It doesn't make AVS any worse anyways.

+2 (assassin beat me to it as +1)


I think flexraid just makes way more sense in media server or HTPC applications that run an OS already.

First,

There is a ton of advantages to running WHS or something like it- like automated backup, remote desktop, advanced network sharing etc...

Second,

Flexraid makes way more sense to someone already up an running because you can add it to an exsiting W7 or WHS installation, and you pool and back up your existing HDD's with data already on them without losing anything or making a mess. No investing in any hardware at all. Just install flexraid and your good go.

So for many of the people with HTPC's that have a couple HDD's in them- it's nice to pool them into a big drive and add a parity drive for backup. That's pretty simple solution that does not cost much, and is simple to set up. The fact flexraid is added to an existing system, and drives with data on them can be added without any issues makes it a pure winner for HTPC enthusiasts.

You'd need to plan from scratch to remove this huge benefit; I am not sure why it's over looked so much.

Same reasons why some think it's right to decide what's "good enough" for everyone.

My guess is that it's just shortsightedness in people thinking that all media servers or content holding machines are designed from the ground up as brand new configurations.

If that is true and you have 0% invested, Own zero pieces of hardware or software and are starting out 100% fresh- then it's a solid option to use unraid. Build a cheap unraid box or server, you don't need to buy an OS and you can choose your hardware wisely (because unraid can be picky with certain hardware and cause frustrations)

But if you already own a HTPC, a PC, or a media server (which all three can be converted back and forth and in between ) then Flexraid is the clear winner. It works on what you already have and it's widely compatible with just about anything (Linux/WHS/W7, and any hardware that runs them). But- it's very important to note that Flexraid can still be used on a 100% brand new configuration without any issues at all and still holds many advantages over unraid in such a situation as well. It's nearly unbeatable compared to the offerings in the marketplace today IMO. I have no hate on unraid either. There is just some limitations I don't want to accept.

If I already owned some HDD's (I did) and I already had a collection of media (I did) I would personally choose flexraid every single time. (I did)

It's very easy to install into an existing set up - and I love that I can add full drives, or remove any drive any time and read it in any other system. To me that benefit is just monstrously huge as for it to be impossible to be overlooked or discredited.

I see unRAID targeting those that want to build a homemade NAS. Those that want a server for more than storage would use another option (software RAID, hardware RAID, cpu assisted hardware RAID, or drive pooling).

My WS2012 Ess runs nightly backups, Homeseer for lighting control, Crashplan for offsite backup, IP cam monitoring, various "download" type programs, and our family website. I'm not building another machine to run unRAID. The only option in that case would be to run VMware ESXi on the machine with unRAID running alongside WS. However, my hardware isn't ESXi compatible...

Right.

At that point I think the technical demands and capabilities of the person and application just tilt in favor of a real server anyways.

No one that knows how to do all that- is going to take the time to make it work with an unraid box. They would build a more robust real server for obvious reasons.

Your 100% that unraid is mostly for those who want to make a homemade NAS box. Advanced stuff it loses it's appeal quickly IMO.

Unraid really isn't that picky with hardware. If it works on Linux it normally works on Unraid. Gigabyte acting stupid caused issues in the past and sometimes there are NIC issues. As has been discussed here a dedicated Intel NIC is a good idea anyways.

In some cases existing hardware make Flexraid an easier option but not always.

You can mount NTFS drives in unraid to do the migration. There is an easy to follow wiki entry on this. This would take longer on Unraid than flexraid, it really shouldn't be that bad though.

I can read my unraid drive in my Windows system.

In your case it sounds like Flexraid was a better option. I can do nightly backups with Unraid. I can do light control through Unraid(I will be posting a tutorial on Unraid forums soon). I can do Crashplan through Unraid. I haven't looked at IP cam yet but will be looking at this soon and implementing into Unraid. Putting a website up is a really bad idea and I hope you know what you are doing and don't have issues, but I can do this with Unraid.

You have a setup that I'm sure works great and I wouldn't suggest attempting to move all of that stuff to an unraid box, it's not worth it. I just didn't want anyone thinking this can't be done.

I'm sure there are IP cam Linux solutions, the cam itself is running some form on Linux.

The website will soon be migrated off the server. Step one was to cancel the hosting plan and host it myself on the server. Step two is to convince the wife that we don't even need it since we hardly ever update it (she is all into Facebook now ). Otherwise I'll just piggyback another one of the sites I run that do have hosting.

I'm familiar with running extra services on a Linux system. I started my networked storage with a NSLU2 that I outgrew a few years ago. It was silly how many things I crammed into that poor little box.

I mean when he vanished from his own site for a long time. The very flexraid forum you mention - he abandoned it for a long spell, leaving everyone who was testing for him in a lurch. I just wonder when he will decide to do it again.

He might, once NZFS is released.

This doesn't sound like a good reputation for a developper who is wanting to catch the enterprise storage market... jokes apart...
We shall see...

If you've already got a PC running that you'd like to convert to server duties, then FlexRAID makes perfect sense. Nobody is arguing that at all, silly or otherwise. Any discussion I've had on one vs. the other has been based on building a server from scratch. This is where you really have to decide which platform suits your needs. Not everyone really cares about running an OS on a server or whether it has other functionality. Some of us just want a box that can be used for media storage and distribution. FWIW, unRAID has a host of add-ins that can increase it's functionality and utility.

Hardware issues with unRAID are usually the result of the builder not doing his homework first unless you happen to be the unlucky individual that's the first to try a certain component that hasn't been tested before. Compatible hardware is discussed at length in the unRAID forums. I've had more hardware issues with FlexRAID than I've ever had with unRAID, which is why I went back to unRAID and never regretted it.

Well, it was time to derail the pricing comparisons because it was getting silly. Reminds me of the Xbox and Playstation comparisons where you had to factor in wireless adapters, charging cables, HDMI cables, and whatever else to prove one was a better deal than the other. Each solution has its place and the NZFS RAID isn't even available.

Price comparisons are only meaningful if you include everything that's required in the total cost. There's nothing silly about it if you're looking for all the facts. Just comparing the cost of each software package could leave you with sticker shock when you discover the hidden costs afterwards. It's all a matter of putting things in their proper perspective. We're only talking about what's required for a basic server without any extras. Aside from the extra OS drive required for FlexRAID, the hardware costs are identical for either setup. FWIW, the price comparisons mentioned here have generally been limited to FlexRAID vs. unRAID. If you've got an established system then FlexRAID is by far the better deal since the differential items have already been paid for. The cost of unRAID by itself is higher for a single Pro license vs. FlexRAID. I never even considered the lesser licenses since they aren't cost effective for the amount of support you get.

I forget what the government regulation is for this but if you implemented it, you might have a lot of money coming your way.

Fair enough. A hard working man deserves to play harder.

Nice to know, but we will always miss you. Don't leave us customers in the dust, ever.

Umm, how is this different from preclear in unRAID?

It appears that it can be used to erase multiple drives on multiple computers simultaneously from a single PC UI. UnRAID only erases a single disk installed on the same server, but not yet added to the array, at least when running pre-clear from a command line. I haven't done it in a while so I don't recall if unRAID can pre-clear multiple drives from the web GUI. In any case, I'm not sure how this would be a useful feature for HTPC users with a media server.

Your blog post didn't say much. How are you doing this? Current USG guidance basically tells people just to use the ATA Secure Erase command, since it clears things you can't clear through simple overwriting. But, as I understand it, you can't issue that command from Windows.

That is a bit of a relief, since you "play harder" left everyone scrambling for alternative software the last time.

HIPPA, PCI, DOD, you name it.... there's a compliance acronym for practically any industry. This is actually a good thing to see in a product.

But let's face facts. The only business spectrumbx will see from NZFS is very small businesses... maybe. Most mid-to-large businesses buy dedicated SANs that run proprietary software RAID, hardware RAID, or ZFS. NZFS better come with built in iSCSI and support for VMware.

I'm not going to trust my critical database to a windows server running something that doesn't come with top-tier support... and the hardware better come with years and years of warranty.

If it doesn't zero out the sectors that the drive has internally de-allocated and replaced with spares due to failures, it isn't any more secure than just filling the disk with zeroes.

Not all information is critical. Most small businesses will just buy a box from Synology. I was talking about the DOD standards which go much further than simply writing zero's. I avoid PCI like the plague.

You are right that he doesn't stand much chance in selling this to enterprises.

You guys are missing the point if a media server. It's just media. Not life or death. Simplicity and stability and low cost are paramount over extreme performance or support.

What? Is this Mfusick? Are you feeling well today?

Well there's a difference to me in spending 10$ less for faster or more reliable product that's plug and play - like a HDD or SSD versus the time effort and cost of setting up an enterprise level server.

You'll notice every argument I've ever made about performance had either value or the path of least resistance also attached to it.

TBH I don't see any small business that will buy this either, when you could buy a synology or readynas that support RAID5 out of the box with next to nothing maintenance afterwards...

Fact of life... you can't grow more than the synology or readynas will allow, but the mere thought that data will not be available from FlexRAID until it is restored from parity which might take hours and hours to complete is definitely something I don't think any business will find acceptable...
Most will prefer degraded performance with data availability over data not being available at all...

Accepting Snapshot RAID in a business environment also sounds very nonchanlant to me IMO...

NZFS doesn't exist yet... any speculation for now might end up being a waste of energy and time...

I value the best bang for the buck as well. I think where we diverge is calling a product "bad" if it is $10 less than something that's a better bang for the buck.

Its not necessarily "bad" --- just not as good of a value.

We're discussing NZFS, not "media servers". All this nonsense that is being spewed by its "creator" (in quotes because this is vaporware right now) about moving into the business world makes things like performance and support essential. None of that is going to be achieved by using a bolt-on Windows product. No enterprise is interested in running their storage on top of Windows like that--even a small business is way more likely (as has been repeatedly pointed out) to go with a fully supported box from Synology or the like. Anyone wanting to be taken seriously by an enterprise would never post threads like this, and would have kept quiet until they had something to show--and at that point, they would have found someone who actually had a grasp on marketing and PR to help them out.

Sure, some of those that are being marketed to in this thread are wanting to use this for a media server, though I cannot begin to understand why since there is no substance whatsoever in the marketing drivel we have thus far been shown, nor anything really that makes this vaporware seem like a logical choice for that purpose compared to the other available solutions.