or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › NZFS or Flexraid (Raid - F)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NZFS or Flexraid (Raid - F)? - Page 2

post #31 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

Write speeds are almost universally slower than read speeds
This part was wrong. Literally the opposite. I've gone through life to this point thinking it was the other way
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

Capacity and speed are correlated. Since hard drives have at most 5 platters (most are 3 or 4), the main way to increase capacity is to increase the density of data on the platters. Since the rotational speed of most drives can be expected to be the same (either ~5400rpm or 7200rpm) in a given system (most people would not choose a 5400rpm parity drive and 7200rpm data drives), the drive with the higher platter data density will have the higher throughput, which means the higher capacity drive will have higher throughput.
This is unsubstantiated and not proven in any way.

Within the given boundary conditions of a media server there is no basis specifically for this:
Quote:
the drive with the higher platter data density will have the higher throughput
post #32 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

This is unsubstantiated and not proven in any way.

Within the given boundary conditions of a media server there is no basis specifically for this:

biggrin.gif That's hilarious!

It is a fundamental property of hard drives, based on the way they work with a platter spinning at a constant speed under a read/write head. There is nothing controversial about my statement. Everyone who knows anything about hard drives is familiar with this property of HDDs. 7200rpm 3.5" HDDs with 1TB platters have higher throughput than 7200rpm 3.5" HDDs with 500GB platters. This is an obvious consequence of the way hard drives work. And of course it has been verified countless times by people measuring their HDDs.
post #33 of 58
It's quite hilarious that so many people *know* so much about HDDs, but none can ever seem to explain the differences in throughput with any real granularity other than "higher-density platters are faster"

I think of that as a simple approach to understanding. Do you think that a P4 overclocked to 5.2 GHz is twice as fast as a stock G1610 running at 2.6 GHz all across the board? Or is there much more going on then one (relatively insignificant) spec? In fact, could it be argued that certain specs hit a plateau and previously irrelevant factors become bottlenecks? Intel certainly found this with latency of electrons in the core 2 era.

On topic of HDDs and platter density increases. One could take an overly simple article written over at Tom's Hardware and read the first line
Quote:
Increased data density typically results in better throughput
then call it a day, close the book, and go about life. Unfortunately they'd be missing a myriad of reasons that contributed much more to those throughput differences than just the simple "data density." Maybe it fails to mention things like the fact that the newest drive (1TB platter) also included a DDR2 DRAM cache with improved caching algorithms. Or that the drive uses a built-in dual-core processor and secondary actuation. All of which improve throughput with the exception of actuator

It's good that virtually everyone who knows anything feels free to attribute all improvements to platter density. It was true back in the day of floppy disks, so it must still be the leading differentiator in disk throughput
post #34 of 58
I'm not sure why you are so confused. The concept is quite basic. If you have a 3.5" platter spinning under a read/write head, obviously the amount of data passing the read/write head is proportional to the data density of the platter.

Of course, it is possible to introduce other bottlenecks to the throughput if the rest of the drive and electronics are extremely poorly designed. For example, if the electronics were too slow to transfer data at the speed that it is being read or written from the platter. But that would be an exceedingly stupid design error. None of the hard drive manufacturers are anywhere near incompetent enough to screw up the design so badly.

I repeat, this is not controversial. It is true (and obvious) that 3.5" HDDs with 1TB platters have higher throughput than 3.5" HDDs with lower density platters, assuming the same rotational speed.
post #35 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

This is unsubstantiated and not proven in any way.

Within the given boundary conditions of a media server there is no basis specifically for this:

biggrin.gif That's hilarious!

It is a fundamental property of hard drives, based on the way they work with a platter spinning at a constant speed under a read/write head. There is nothing controversial about my statement. Everyone who knows anything about hard drives is familiar with this property of HDDs. 7200rpm 3.5" HDDs with 1TB platters have higher throughput than 7200rpm 3.5" HDDs with 500GB platters. This is an obvious consequence of the way hard drives work. And of course it has been verified countless times by people measuring their HDDs.


+1

It's also well documented in myriad of professional HDD reviews.
post #36 of 58
I've never seen a lower platter density drive perform better than a higher density drive at the same size/spindle speed. It's 100% always the opposite.
post #37 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

I run SnapRAID on my linux server. It works very well. SnapRAID's design is better than FlexRAID's (block- rather than file-based checksums) and SnapRAID is more focused, which I like. But some people like a GUI and want all-in-one programs rather than the linux approach of having a streamlined program for each distinct task. SnapRAID can be run under Windows, there is a third party GUI available for it, and SnapRAID recently added some basic pooling capability, but I think SnapRAID still retains some of its focused do-one-task-and-do-it-well flavor, as compared to FlexRAID which to me seems to be a jack-of-all-trades master-of-none and have a GUI that slows me down (give me a clean text file configuration any day, but that is me, I know others have different opinions). Of course, SnapRAID is free and open-source, unlike FlexRAID.

Hey Jim2100, have you ever seen other people running SnapRAID under Windows (like server 2012) with GUI? To me, FlexRaid is "so far so good" but I want to give SnapRAID a try while I'm waiting NZFS.
Thank you for the response.
post #38 of 58
Elpee, I didn't think you were seriously building a 100TB server. If it were me, I'd definitely use iSCSI with a server network and a couple domain controllers. That is wayyy too much data to keep up with all those NTFS User Rights (ACL) per machine and per user.

A domain controller would definitely help other things too; Like DFS or NFS. It certainly isn't a very big learning curve to set up a couple of DCs either.

If you need help with that, PM me.
post #39 of 58
100tb is just so crazy!
post #40 of 58
I hope you plan that into your "Last Will and Testament" because that's enough data for at least 2 generations of your family. lol.

You certainly will have some heads turned here when you post the picture/screenshot of the total data space.
post #41 of 58
post #42 of 58
That guy is awesome !

77TB in a month ...lol

That's online ! Haha. My Comcast would cry at 50GB ... They've called me frown.gif
post #43 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

That guy is awesome !

77TB in a month ...lol

That's online ! Haha. My Comcast would cry at 50GB ... They've called me frown.gif

It's amazing how he lets his friends and family access his media while he pays for all of it and the high speed connection required to make that possible. He must be a REALLY good guy. Or he's just crazy. He's the boss regardless.

And dat server rack :O
Edited by amarshonarbangla - 5/25/13 at 10:34pm
post #44 of 58
I agree. smile.gif

Seems silly to invest like that just to share movies with friends.
post #45 of 58
Someone has a little insecurity problem. Thinks he's gaining friends by serving them movies. All that he's gaining is users.
post #46 of 58
He's probably just into it being in IT - trying to be nice.

It's just he is so excessive at it that's its funny to normal people

None of us would ever consider a server like that ... Lol

He used 77TB in a month !!! Online !!!

Lol.

That is like every movie in last few years ... Lol.
post #47 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post


None of us would ever consider a server like that ....

Speak for yourself... smile.gif
post #48 of 58
Lol. Ok smile.gif

Never know. I might have a 250TB server someday.

That's like $15,000.00 in just HDDs ... Lol
Not sure wife would allow that.
post #49 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

It's amazing how he lets his friends and family access his media while he pays for all of it and the high speed connection required to make that possible. He must be a REALLY good guy. Or he's just crazy. He's the boss regardless.

And dat server rack :O

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyB View Post

Someone has a little insecurity problem. Thinks he's gaining friends by serving them movies. All that he's gaining is users.

So funny how y'all buy the story... biggrin.gif

Who will be doing this for free keeping in mind the capital cost and maintenance involved?
post #50 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by balky View Post


So funny how y'all buy the story... biggrin.gif

Who will be doing this for free keeping in mind the capital cost and maintenance involved?

That guy apparently. He probably won the lottery or something and being a hardware nerd that he is, he can't figure out what else to spend his money on.
post #51 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Lol. Ok smile.gif

Never know. I might have a 250TB server someday.

That's like $15,000.00 in just HDDs ... Lol
Not sure wife would allow that.

I am actually planning my server out so that mass expansion in the future will be easy without changing much hardware.
post #52 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

I am actually planning my server out so that mass expansion in the future will be easy without changing much hardware.

Heh heh... LOL...

How far out into the future are you planning for?

3yrs tops... all your hardware will be outdated...

goodluck!
post #53 of 58
I would be like that if I hit powerball smile.gif
post #54 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by balky View Post

Heh heh... LOL...

How far out into the future are you planning for?

3yrs tops... all your hardware will be outdated...

goodluck!

It's a media server. A server. Did I say it's a server? A machine that serves files. Servers don't require much upgrades if you begin with good hardware. I am sure you know that.
post #55 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

That guy apparently. He probably won the lottery or something and being a hardware nerd that he is, he can't figure out what else to spend his money on.

Hey, if the guy's single nothing wrong with that! Besides, he'll go bankrupt quickly spending that kind of money on a woman (especially if she ditches him at some point), so at least he's putting the money where his passion is. Nothing wrong with that at all!

Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

It's a media server. A server. Did I say it's a server? A machine that serves files. Servers don't require much upgrades if you begin with good hardware. I am sure you know that.

+1. Servers can last many years without any hardware upgrades since its not like its a main desktop machine or a gaming machine. Only hardware that would have to be changed out on occasion on a server would be the hard drives. Besides, a server can be left in one room and never get touched again since they can be controlled remotely.
post #56 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVTechMan View Post

Hey, if the guy's single nothing wrong with that! Besides, he'll go bankrupt quickly spending that kind of money on a woman (especially if she ditches him at some point), so at least he's putting the money where his passion is. Nothing wrong with that at all!

I lol'd pretty hard on that one, but I do agree with what's being said here.
post #57 of 58
How fast a connection do you need to use 77TB from your ISP in a month ?
post #58 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

How fast a connection do you need to use 77TB from your ISP in a month ?

I think that rounds off to around 30MB/s (or 240Mb/s) at constant usage if you're talking about traffic in one direction (majorly download)
But since the 77T is the total in both directions (upload + download) if we divide by two, that will give 15MB/s (or 120Mb/s)

A POS circuit will deliver this without any problem

The only strange thing is idea of someone keeping a POS connection (very very expensive hardware) at home for sharing media with family and friends... believe me, I'm not buying... biggrin.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › NZFS or Flexraid (Raid - F)?