Ripping Blu-Rays II - Page 382 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 4973Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #11431 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 05:21 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
agogley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,755
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonkennethrose View Post
Yes, 12 bays running JBOD on Windows Server 2012 R2. There is zero reason to waste disc space on redundancy. Use external drives for backup purposes not redundancy (incase of physical drive loss) in a fire proof safe or offsite location. The information on the discs should really never change if you are storing your media for playback (once a drive is full the data doesn't change). Every internal drive I buy I also buy the same amount of external drive space. If you lose a drive, replace it, pull out the stored backup, copy it back to a new drive, and then place the backup drive back in storage. 4TB Western Digital My Passports are cheap, I own about 55 of them just for offsite backups. You will never have to re-rip a disc. I learned this the hard way, twice.
With JBOD it reads everything as a single volume, right? So what happens when a single drive goes down? Do you have to restore the entire data set once you replace the drive?
agogley is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #11432 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 05:27 AM
One-Man Content Creator
 
wmcclain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 24,434
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4582 Post(s)
Liked: 4417
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
Any advantages with SnapRaid over unRAID? I have been using it in a 7-drive, 21TB array with two parity drives and love it.

My “backup” to that are the physical BD discs ... I own ‘em all.

Jeff
I don't know much about unRaid, although I read their hardware forums whenever I'm shopping. Those guys test a lot of gear.

SnapRAID has a comparison chart of several non-traditional raid solutions: http://www.snapraid.it/compare

-Bill

Review older films here: 1979 and earlier | 1980s | 1990s | Combined reviews: Strange Picture Scroll
Unofficial OPPO FAQS: UDP-203 | BDP-103 | BDP-93 | BDP-83 | BDP-80    
wmcclain is online now  
post #11433 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 07:03 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,953
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1492 Post(s)
Liked: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcclain View Post
I don't know much about unRaid, although I read their hardware forums whenever I'm shopping. Those guys test a lot of gear.

SnapRAID has a comparison chart of several non-traditional raid solutions: http://www.snapraid.it/compare

-Bill
Ah yes, I remember looking at that page when I was considering buying a license for unRAID. SnapRAID’s advantage seems to be in the data integrity area. Beyond (silently?) fixing silent errors, some members here seem to not be “wasting” a drive for parity.

I’m good for now with unRAID, but will give it another look if that changes.

I do very much like the web GUI for unRAID ... can anyone point me to images of SnapRAID’s GUI. I haven’t been able to find any ... Elucidate, correct?

Jeff

"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." W. Gibson

"I like the future, I'm in it." F. Theater

Last edited by pepar; 08-10-2019 at 07:10 AM.
pepar is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #11434 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 08:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jon S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Sunny Hawaii
Posts: 4,422
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1119 Post(s)
Liked: 402
When I bought smaller NAS's before, I had problems streaming large video files. The video would stutter or freeze. I discovered that the CPU in the NAS was not powerful enough to stream videos. I ended up buying a QNAP NAS with a Intel Celeron processor. While it fixed most of my issues, it still hangs occasionally if there are two or more people streaming from the NAS.

If it's not a BIG screen, it's not a theater...
Jon S is offline  
post #11435 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 09:44 AM
Senior Member
 
jasonkennethrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
Any advantages with SnapRaid over unRAID? I have been using it in a 7-drive, 21TB array with two parity drives and love it.

My “backup” to that are the physical BD discs ... I own ‘em all.

Jeff
I have all my disc's also but it would take weeks if not months to re-rip them all again. Like I said, I have done this twice and have learned my lesson that having cheap offline discs makes it possible to restore in a few hours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post
With JBOD it reads everything as a single volume, right? So what happens when a single drive goes down? Do you have to restore the entire data set once you replace the drive?
JBOD is not a RAID. JBOD is exactly what it stands for "Just A Bunch Of Disks". Each disk is its own volume. You can however use software to create a Spanned Volume (RAID 0) on a JBOD but then yes you would lose all the data. There is zero reasons to have spanned volumes for your media.

From my post: If you lose a drive, replace it, pull out the stored backup, copy it back to a new drive, and then place the backup drive back in storage.
SuperFist likes this.
jasonkennethrose is offline  
post #11436 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 10:29 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,953
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1492 Post(s)
Liked: 903
One’s budget can be the enemy of the perfect. Many, just starting out, buy initial drives for content and use simple file sharing to stream it to a player. Somewhere along the way, maybe, an official NAS is purchased. And a drive gets used for parity. Technically minded folks with larger budgets build a SnapRAID/unRAID server complete with multiple parity drives. Last, perhaps, is 1:1 offline storage.

I doubt that I can ever justify 21TB of backup storage for my 21TB media server. I will re-rip. For that, I would scale back up to 4-5 BD readers to feed my 3-4 instances of your cool tool. 🙂

YMMV
Jeff

"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." W. Gibson

"I like the future, I'm in it." F. Theater

Last edited by pepar; 08-10-2019 at 10:33 AM.
pepar is online now  
post #11437 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 12:14 PM
Senior Member
 
jasonkennethrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
One’s budget can be the enemy of the perfect. Many, just starting out, buy initial drives for content and use simple file sharing to stream it to a player. Somewhere along the way, maybe, an official NAS is purchased. And a drive gets used for parity. Technically minded folks with larger budgets build a SnapRAID/unRAID server complete with multiple parity drives. Last, perhaps, is 1:1 offline storage.

I doubt that I can ever justify 21TB of backup storage for my 21TB media server. I will re-rip. For that, I would scale back up to 4-5 BD readers to feed my 3-4 instances of your cool tool. 🙂

YMMV
Jeff
Please don't take this as argumentative.

4TB Western Digital My Passport = $99.99

Price of an average Blu-Ray = $18.99

4TB of storage = Average of 150 ripped Blu-Ray's

Price for 1:1 backup of 150 rips = The price of 6 Blu-Ray's

Price of me losing the sanity of re-ripping 150 disc's = No amount of $'s
gomo657 likes this.
jasonkennethrose is offline  
post #11438 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 01:30 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rdgrimes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Posts: 21,632
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3806 Post(s)
Liked: 3003
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonkennethrose View Post
Please don't take this as argumentative.

4TB Western Digital My Passport = $99.99

Price of an average Blu-Ray = $18.99

4TB of storage = Average of 150 ripped Blu-Ray's

Price for 1:1 backup of 150 rips = The price of 6 Blu-Ray's

Price of me losing the sanity of re-ripping 150 disc's = No amount of $'s
This.

Price of 8TB and 10TB is frequently $140 and $160 respectively on sale.
I get aggravated just having to transfer 8TB of data from one HDD to another. Re-ripping is out of the question.
I have 2 full copies of everything.
rdgrimes is online now  
post #11439 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 01:41 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
agogley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,755
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonkennethrose View Post
I have all my disc's also but it would take weeks if not months to re-rip them all again. Like I said, I have done this twice and have learned my lesson that having cheap offline discs makes it possible to restore in a few hours.



JBOD is not a RAID. JBOD is exactly what it stands for "Just A Bunch Of Disks". Each disk is its own volume. You can however use software to create a Spanned Volume (RAID 0) on a JBOD but then yes you would lose all the data. There is zero reasons to have spanned volumes for your media.

From my post: If you lose a drive, replace it, pull out the stored backup, copy it back to a new drive, and then place the backup drive back in storage.
A couple things. First, I understand JBOD and what the acronym stands for. But let me correct you on a couple points. First, a spanned volume is not RAID 0. A spanned volume is form of JBOD. RAID 0 is a striped volume where the data is written across all the physical drives in a volume. RAID 0 is done merely for speed.

And yes, in a JBOD arrangement, you can certainly direct the OS to manage each physical drive as an independent logical volume, assuming the OS allows that. You have 20 drives, you have 20 unique volumes. That seems a bit unwieldy to me having essentially operated in this fashion for the past few years by having 4 different NASes. I wasn't sure Synology or QNAP had the option to treat each physical drive separately. As it turns out, they do however, you don't set them up in "JBOD" as that will span the drives into a single volume. You have to create a "basic volume" for each physical drive.

Last edited by agogley; 08-13-2019 at 08:10 PM.
agogley is offline  
post #11440 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 02:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
whiteboy714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,167
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1008 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
Ah yes, I remember looking at that page when I was considering buying a license for unRAID. SnapRAID’s advantage seems to be in the data integrity area. Beyond (silently?) fixing silent errors, some members here seem to not be “wasting” a drive for parity.



I’m good for now with unRAID, but will give it another look if that changes.



I do very much like the web GUI for unRAID ... can anyone point me to images of SnapRAID’s GUI. I haven’t been able to find any ... Elucidate, correct?



Jeff


Snapraid doesn't have a gui. It's a very simple program. There is a gui you can use I believe that is third party developed. But when I was researching it wasn't kept up well and not recommended. I use it in combination with drivepool.

Which puts all my disks (as I choose) into one volume. It's very nice after just using a bunch of disks for many years.

Samsung 55MU6290 -- Denon X1400h -- Klipsch RP600m -- RP450C -- Micca M-6S 6.5 -- Dual Klipsch RW-10
whiteboy714 is online now  
post #11441 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 02:08 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,953
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1492 Post(s)
Liked: 903
c.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonkennethrose View Post
Please don't take this as argumentative.

4TB Western Digital My Passport = $99.99

Price of an average Blu-Ray = $18.99

4TB of storage = Average of 150 ripped Blu-Ray's

Price for 1:1 backup of 150 rips = The price of 6 Blu-Ray's

Price of me losing the sanity of re-ripping 150 disc's = No amount of $'s
Spinning rust storage has certainly dropped precipitously since I (we?) began began ripping. My array is 3TB Reds and I paid more than $99 per drive. But I don’t necessarily disagree with your position.

I need 1 ... 2 ... and then a third drive to fail before I am back in Mass Ripsville. Even then, assuming I am at least as sane as you, I need three failures x two times before I could see your logic.

Jeff

"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." W. Gibson

"I like the future, I'm in it." F. Theater
pepar is online now  
post #11442 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 02:13 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,953
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1492 Post(s)
Liked: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdgrimes View Post
I have 2 full copies of everything.
Two copies is an aspirational goal. For me at least, sorta like having a Tesla.

Jeff

"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." W. Gibson

"I like the future, I'm in it." F. Theater
pepar is online now  
post #11443 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 02:16 PM
Senior Member
 
jasonkennethrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 81
These were cool when they first came out.

Seagate-Business-Storage-Windows

They ran Windows Storage Server 2012 (Light weight Windows Server 2012) which was great for disk management and seamless Active Directory integration. Even had a front slot to slide in an external hard drive for easy copying. Though I would never put a Seagate drive in it, the enclosure and software were amazing.

To bad more NAS company's didn't adopt hardware that supported Windows Storage Server. I can understand that it would inflate the cost because of the software license.
jasonkennethrose is offline  
post #11444 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 02:18 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,953
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1492 Post(s)
Liked: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteboy714 View Post
Snapraid doesn't have a gui. It's a very simple program. There is a gui you can use I believe that is third party developed. But when I was researching it wasn't kept up well and not recommended. I use it in combination with drivepool.
I reviewed it all again and now remember why I stayed with unRAID; I am not a CLI guy.

"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." W. Gibson

"I like the future, I'm in it." F. Theater
pepar is online now  
post #11445 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 02:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
whiteboy714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,167
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1008 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
I reviewed it all again and now remember why I stayed with unRAID; I am not a CLI guy.


Yeah I'm not either. But I went for it. It's basically setting up a config file and then running the sync command periodically.

Samsung 55MU6290 -- Denon X1400h -- Klipsch RP600m -- RP450C -- Micca M-6S 6.5 -- Dual Klipsch RW-10
whiteboy714 is online now  
post #11446 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 02:39 PM
Senior Member
 
jasonkennethrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
Spinning rust storage has certainly dropped precipitously since I (we?) began began ripping. My array is 3TB Reds and I paid more than $99 per drive. But I don’t necessarily disagree with your position.

I need 1 ... 2 ... and then a third drive to fail before I am back in Mass Ripsville. Even then, assuming I am at least as sane as you, I need three failures x two times before I could see your logic.

Jeff
What RAID are you running 5 or 6? How many bays are you losing to redundancy? I lose 0 but still have RAID 1. If the data on the spinning drive never changes, then having an offline mirror saves you incredibly expensive enclosure space. Drives might be cheap but enclosure space is expensive.

When I built my current NAS, I calculated the amount of current space I was using and how much I would add each year. I expect to replace a 24/7 spinning enterprise hard drive every 5 years (manufacture warranty). I calculated that when I reached the enclosures limit on drives, my first drive would need to be replaced. The time between replacement would allow me to replace the drive with one twice the size ($'s per TB affordability). Every time I bought a 4TB drive I would buy 1 4TB My Passport. When I bought 8TB drives I would buy 2 4TB My Passports. I would just account for it in the cost of the internal drive. Right now I am actually ahead of my expected cost and reliability.
jasonkennethrose is offline  
post #11447 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 05:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jon S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Sunny Hawaii
Posts: 4,422
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1119 Post(s)
Liked: 402
Buy the biggest RAID NAS box you can afford... It will be a lot cheaper in the long run... I have a QNAP TS-453 Pro with four bays. I had 4TB drives which gave me 10.5TB net free space on a RAID 5. I quickly ran out of room and bought four 6TB drives which gave me 16.5TB net... Now I am looking at getting four 8TB drives for 21.5TB free space...



The problem is I am always buying all four new drives to increase the capacity. If I spent another couple hundred dollars four the 8-bay NAS, all I would have to do was buy additional 4TB drives and fill the array gradually.



The four 6TB HDD cost be $1000 and buying four 8TB drives will cost another $1200 or $2200 total. If I bought the 8-bay NAS, all I had to do would be to buy four more 4TB hard drives (total 25TB net) for $450 before I ran out of room.

If it's not a BIG screen, it's not a theater...
Jon S is offline  
post #11448 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 05:33 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,953
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1492 Post(s)
Liked: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonkennethrose View Post
What RAID are you running 5 or 6? How many bays are you losing to redundancy? I lose 0 but still have RAID 1. If the data on the spinning drive never changes, then having an offline mirror saves you incredibly expensive enclosure space. Drives might be cheap but enclosure space is expensive.

When I built my current NAS, I calculated the amount of current space I was using and how much I would add each year. I expect to replace a 24/7 spinning enterprise hard drive every 5 years (manufacture warranty). I calculated that when I reached the enclosures limit on drives, my first drive would need to be replaced. The time between replacement would allow me to replace the drive with one twice the size ($'s per TB affordability). Every time I bought a 4TB drive I would buy 1 4TB My Passport. When I bought 8TB drives I would buy 2 4TB My Passports. I would just account for it in the cost of the internal drive. Right now I am actually ahead of my expected cost and reliability.
It’s - literally - UN-RAID in that it doesn’t fit into any of the classic RAID levels. (SnapRAID .. ditto.) Individual files are all on a single disc; none span. There is no redundancy, per se. But there are drives that hold parity data and allow rebuilding individual drives. I use two, the max for unRAID, so two of my array drives can fail and still be rebuilt.

My “enclosure” is a tall Lian Li tower with 6 x 5-1/4” bays into which I have installed two 5-in-3 cages. Six drives are content, two are parity and another is ready to be pressed into service in case of an active drive failure.

You seem to be on a more upward trajectory than I am. I am using ~65% of 18TB, and I expect I will add only a dozen or so movies per year. And maybe a handful of hi-res MCH albums. I am good for quite a while as is. If I ever need to replace a disc, I will buy whatever larger dis makes sense. I clearly have not given it as much thought as you, but I think I have given it enough thought given my scenario.

Jeff

"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." W. Gibson

"I like the future, I'm in it." F. Theater
pepar is online now  
post #11449 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 08:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
whiteboy714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,167
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1008 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon S View Post
Buy the biggest RAID NAS box you can afford... It will be a lot cheaper in the long run... I have a QNAP TS-453 Pro with four bays. I had 4TB drives which gave me 10.5TB net free space on a RAID 5. I quickly ran out of room and bought four 6TB drives which gave me 16.5TB net... Now I am looking at getting four 8TB drives for 21.5TB free space...



The problem is I am always buying all four new drives to increase the capacity. If I spent another couple hundred dollars four the 8-bay NAS, all I would have to do was buy additional 4TB drives and fill the array gradually.



The four 6TB HDD cost be $1000 and buying four 8TB drives will cost another $1200 or $2200 total. If I bought the 8-bay NAS, all I had to do would be to buy four more 4TB hard drives (total 25TB net) for $450 before I ran out of room.


Man that seems like a bad investment for the little gain you keep getting. Sounds like starting over might be better in the long run.

Samsung 55MU6290 -- Denon X1400h -- Klipsch RP600m -- RP450C -- Micca M-6S 6.5 -- Dual Klipsch RW-10
whiteboy714 is online now  
post #11450 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 09:01 PM
UHD Addict
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 35,689
Mentioned: 67 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9126 Post(s)
Liked: 5855
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonkennethrose View Post
Yes, 12 bays running JBOD on Windows Server 2012 R2. There is zero reason to waste disc space on redundancy. ........
That was the main reason in 2011 I switched from using WIndows Home Servers to unRAIDs. I had around 54TB of storage on my WHS but lost half of that to redundancy. And I had too much content to use JBOD with thirty drives. I tried that way back in 2002, when I had twelve drives totaling 3TB of storage on my network for my HD recordings. And it was always a pain to manage that many separate drives.

53TB unRAID1a--49TB unRAID2--76TB unRAID3
TCL 6 Series--Sony UBP-X800--Philips BDP7502--Onkyo HT-S7800
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme

Last edited by aaronwt; 08-10-2019 at 09:06 PM.
aaronwt is online now  
post #11451 of 11550 Old 08-10-2019, 09:09 PM
UHD Addict
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 35,689
Mentioned: 67 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9126 Post(s)
Liked: 5855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon S View Post
When I bought smaller NAS's before, I had problems streaming large video files. The video would stutter or freeze. I discovered that the CPU in the NAS was not powerful enough to stream videos. I ended up buying a QNAP NAS with a Intel Celeron processor. While it fixed most of my issues, it still hangs occasionally if there are two or more people streaming from the NAS.
With unRAID, even the very low end processors I'm using from 2013 can stream any UHD content(two N40L and one N54L HP microservers). And of course transfers always max out my gigabit connection. You should not need a powerful CPU for streaming from storage. Only if something is being transcoded. Which is why I use an 8th Gen corei5 CPUs in my UHD Plex machine. Since if I ever need to transcode my UHD content, there are no issues. Although I am mostly direct playing the UHD video.

Even my very old 2008 Netbook, with an old CPU that has a PassMark of under 500, can easily stream 100+ Mb/s UHD content to any of my UHD streamers. It is just streaming the data over the network. Of course it also needs to have a Gigabit Ethernet Port to stream the high bitrate content. WHich my old Netbook has.

I'm currently use three unRAID setups for over 175TB of total storage. I am using around sixty drives between my three unRAID setups. I recently set them up with dual parity and upgraded twenty eight drives to 4TB. Although I still have 3TB and 2TB drives in use on my oldest unRAID. 4TB and 3TB on the next. And my newest one, from 2013, has all 4TB, NAS rated drives now. My 2TB drives are pretty old now. I had them in my last WHS back in 2011 before I moved them to an unRAID. But they still keep spinning without issues. But it's also one of the things that pushed me to start using dual parity this SUmmer.

53TB unRAID1a--49TB unRAID2--76TB unRAID3
TCL 6 Series--Sony UBP-X800--Philips BDP7502--Onkyo HT-S7800
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme

Last edited by aaronwt; 08-10-2019 at 09:24 PM.
aaronwt is online now  
post #11452 of 11550 Old 08-13-2019, 07:28 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
agogley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,755
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
That was the main reason in 2011 I switched from using WIndows Home Servers to unRAIDs. I had around 54TB of storage on my WHS but lost half of that to redundancy. And I had too much content to use JBOD with thirty drives. I tried that way back in 2002, when I had twelve drives totaling 3TB of storage on my network for my HD recordings. And it was always a pain to manage that many separate drives.
That is what I was thinking. Most NAS will span the physical drives into a single volume when you choose the "JBOD" setup. You have to go through a setup process for each drive to make each physical drive its own volume. I would think this would become a bit unwieldy having to track and maintain each volume. This is one reason why I wanted to move to a single NAS. I'm tired of dealing with 4 volumes having the software on one drive then having movies spread across various drives. <br>

I'm starting to be inclined towards going with Synology and doing their RAID they call SHR. That way I can buy 4 10 TB drives for 30 GB of storage. That would already be more than twice the amount of storage I'm currently using. And my purchase rate for media is slowing down substantially. That also seems way more practical than having 40TB of storage using JBOD or separate volumes and then buying 4 more drives (or even more than that) to back up everything. I mean I don't see why 80TB and only getting 4 is better than using a redundant RAID option (Except for the point made above that enclosure space is the limiting factor and having offline storage frees up that space). Theoretically it seems to offer a bit safer backup strategy, but practically it would seem to me to be far more expensive and time consuming. But that's just me thinking through my position.

Last edited by agogley; 08-13-2019 at 08:12 PM.
agogley is offline  
post #11453 of 11550 Old 08-13-2019, 08:19 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
agogley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,755
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon S View Post
Buy the biggest RAID NAS box you can afford... It will be a lot cheaper in the long run... I have a QNAP TS-453 Pro with four bays. I had 4TB drives which gave me 10.5TB net free space on a RAID 5. I quickly ran out of room and bought four 6TB drives which gave me 16.5TB net... Now I am looking at getting four 8TB drives for 21.5TB free space...



The problem is I am always buying all four new drives to increase the capacity. If I spent another couple hundred dollars four the 8-bay NAS, all I would have to do was buy additional 4TB drives and fill the array gradually.



The four 6TB HDD cost be $1000 and buying four 8TB drives will cost another $1200 or $2200 total. If I bought the 8-bay NAS, all I had to do would be to buy four more 4TB hard drives (total 25TB net) for $450 before I ran out of room.
This is why I kept buying an additional NAS. I'd run out of space, add another standalone NAS. It was far more economical and I could expand ad naseum. But managing several NAS is a pain.

I'm thinking of going to a 4 BAY Synology system and adding 3 10 TB drives. That will give me 20TB net. I could later add another 10TB for a total of 30 TBs (After redundancy). I think you have to anticipate your needs but in 5 years what will storage look like and what will you want? At our current rate 10TB might cost $99 in 2025.
agogley is offline  
post #11454 of 11550 Old 08-14-2019, 12:45 AM
Senior Member
 
jasonkennethrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post
This is why I kept buying an additional NAS. I'd run out of space, add another standalone NAS. It was far more economical and I could expand ad naseum. But managing several NAS is a pain.

I'm thinking of going to a 4 BAY Synology system and adding 3 10 TB drives. That will give me 20TB net. I could later add another 10TB for a total of 30 TBs (After redundancy). I think you have to anticipate your needs but in 5 years what will storage look like and what will you want? At our current rate 10TB might cost $99 in 2025.
Seems crazy to lose 1/3 of your storage then 1/4 when your enclosure is full, but I guess I am in the minority about JBOD with offline mirrors. I would recommend only buying the space you need. Spinning a drive with no data on it still ages it. When you do need more room at least your warranty will last longer then spinning an empty drive from the start.
jasonkennethrose is offline  
post #11455 of 11550 Old 08-14-2019, 06:29 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,953
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1492 Post(s)
Liked: 903
Sooo, the benefit you see in your scheme, @jasonkennethrose , is not that you aren't paying for "redundency"/"lost" storage, it's that your offline drives aren't spinning (wearing) all of the time?


Jeff

"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." W. Gibson

"I like the future, I'm in it." F. Theater

Last edited by pepar; 08-14-2019 at 06:33 AM.
pepar is online now  
post #11456 of 11550 Old 08-14-2019, 07:43 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
agogley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,755
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonkennethrose View Post
Seems crazy to lose 1/3 of your storage then 1/4 when your enclosure is full, but I guess I am in the minority about JBOD with offline mirrors. I would recommend only buying the space you need. Spinning a drive with no data on it still ages it. When you do need more room at least your warranty will last longer then spinning an empty drive from the start.
Crazy seems like a strong word to describe a NAS setup to use RAID 5 (or some other). I get your concern. You are more concerned about enclosure space being taken up. I get that's a significant concern. And I agree that in addition to maximizing enclosure space you also have a better backup plan because you are fully redundant so no matter what happens to your NAS or the drive therein, you are fully backed and ready to roll.


But I don't understand why you don't see the weaknesses of that arrangement that would cause somebody like me to at least consider other alternatives. #1 - The cost is significantly higher because you have to buy at least twice the number of physical drives. For most of us, money is the biggest limitation. That's why I'm not running a rack server with 90 drives in my closet. #2 - You have a bunch of physical drives you have to store in addition to your NAS. For 4 drives, I agree this isn't a bid deal. But for some of these guys, I could see it being an major impediment. #3 - You have to treat each physical drive as its own volume. This is the same for point #2 . Probably no big deal for smaller number of drives but horrible for a large number.


As to your statement about the warranty, I just don't get it. Ok, I understand the drives may last longer if you aren't spinning them up all the time. But the warranty is unaffected by their use or non-use. I'm not aware of any warranty that goes by the amount of time your drive is actually active. All of them are a specified time period from the date of purchase.




Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
Sooo, the benefit you see in your scheme, @jasonkennethrose , is not that you aren't paying for "redundency"/"lost" storage, it's that your offline drives aren't spinning (wearing) all of the time?
I didn't understand his point here. He certainly is paying for redundancy. In fact, a lot for it. I can understand wanting to maximize enclosure utilization. Having offline storage means he gets every last GB of storage available. Also, an offline redundancy is extremely safe. If lightning fries his NAS he gets a new one, puts in new drives and restores.


But the warranty? I don't get that. Unless he means he wants the drives to outlast their warranty?
agogley is offline  
post #11457 of 11550 Old 08-14-2019, 07:44 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
agogley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,755
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonkennethrose View Post
Seems crazy to lose 1/3 of your storage then 1/4 when your enclosure is full, but I guess I am in the minority about JBOD with offline mirrors. I would recommend only buying the space you need. Spinning a drive with no data on it still ages it. When you do need more room at least your warranty will last longer then spinning an empty drive from the start.
Crazy seems like a strong word to describe a NAS setup to use RAID 5 (or some other). I get your concern. You are more concerned about enclosure space being taken up. I get that's a significant concern. And I agree that in addition to maximizing enclosure space you also have a better backup plan because you are fully redundant so no matter what happens to your NAS or the drive therein, you are fully backed and ready to roll.


But I don't understand why you don't see the weaknesses of that arrangement that would cause somebody like me to at least consider other alternatives. #1 - The cost is significantly higher because you have to buy at least twice the number of physical drives. For most of us, money is the biggest limitation. That's why I'm not running a rack server with 90 drives in my closet. #2 - You have a bunch of physical drives you have to store in addition to your NAS. For 4 drives, I agree this isn't a bid deal. But for some of these guys, I could see it being an major impediment. #3 - You have to treat each physical drive as its own volume. This is the same for point #2 . Probably no big deal for smaller number of drives but horrible for a large number.


As to your statement about the warranty, I just don't get it. Ok, I understand the drives may last longer if you aren't spinning them up all the time. But the warranty is unaffected by their use or non-use. I'm not aware of any warranty that goes by the amount of time your drive is actually active. All of them are a specified time period from the date of purchase.




Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
Sooo, the benefit you see in your scheme, @jasonkennethrose , is not that you aren't paying for "redundency"/"lost" storage, it's that your offline drives aren't spinning (wearing) all of the time?
I didn't understand his point here. He certainly is paying for redundancy. In fact, a lot for it. I can understand wanting to maximize enclosure utilization. Having offline storage means he gets every last GB of storage available. Also, an offline redundancy is extremely safe. If lightning fries his NAS he gets a new one, puts in new drives and restores.


But the warranty? I don't get that. Unless he means he wants the drives to outlast their warranty?
agogley is offline  
post #11458 of 11550 Old 08-14-2019, 07:56 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rdgrimes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Posts: 21,632
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3806 Post(s)
Liked: 3003
Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post
This is why I kept buying an additional NAS. I'd run out of space, add another standalone NAS. It was far more economical and I could expand ad naseum. But managing several NAS is a pain.

I'm thinking of going to a 4 BAY Synology system and adding 3 10 TB drives. That will give me 20TB net. I could later add another 10TB for a total of 30 TBs (After redundancy). I think you have to anticipate your needs but in 5 years what will storage look like and what will you want? At our current rate 10TB might cost $99 in 2025.
Be aware that Synology also offers "Expansion Units" which add another 5 or more drive slots to an existing NAS. Most of the "plus" series and above are compatible with one of the expansion units.
rdgrimes is online now  
post #11459 of 11550 Old 08-14-2019, 09:13 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,953
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1492 Post(s)
Liked: 903
I have enough now unused full and mid towers from migrating my six PCs to mATX and mini-ITX that I will never need to buy more drive space. It ain’t pretty but it’s in a basement closet under the staircase.
giomania likes this.

"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." W. Gibson

"I like the future, I'm in it." F. Theater
pepar is online now  
post #11460 of 11550 Old 08-14-2019, 11:02 AM
Senior Member
 
jasonkennethrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 81
I use RAID 1/5/6 all the time for accessibility and availability. Like using RAID 1 for Server OS drives and RAID 5 or 6 for accessibility and availability for volatile data during a drive failure. These types allow for a system or data to always be available when a drive failure occurs.

Storing media is not cost effective at 24/7 availability. What it does need is reliability. You can live without whatever is on a single drive during the time it needs to be replaced. Once a single drive is full the data never changes or at least on my NAS's it doesn't. I have no reason to change the data. I don't delete or create anything on the drives once they are full. I connect a My Passport, make a 1:1 copy, and place it in the safe.

This is why I choose to use JBOD and an offline backup solution. It gives me the most enclosure space and the most enclosure size with no chance of having to re-rip all my discs. I fully expect my drives to fail at some point. All my drives have 5 year warranties. If a drive fails while under warranty, I RMA it, replace the drive, and copy data from backup. If a drive fails after the warranty, I replace the drive with the best TB/$$ drive, and copy data from backup. If the drive does not fail but my enclosure is full, I replace the drive with the best TB/$$ drive, and copy data from backup.

As for my warranty comment. Spinning a drive that outlasts its warranty and fails but never sees data is a waste of money. If you currently need 5TB of storage and expect to need a total of 10TB in 3 years buying 10TB of storage with a 3 year warranty is good. Buying 20TB of storage, only using 10TB, and having a drive fail at the 3 year 1 day mark was a waste of money. Once again this is based on non-volatile data.

Volatile Data = Data that always changes = 24/7 solution.
Non-Volatile Data = Data that never changes = Good backup solution.

Last plug for JBOD with offline backups for non-volatile data. No amount of RAID will help you recover from complete loss (Fire, Flooding, Natural Disaster, Locust, Famine).
jasonkennethrose is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming

Tags
3d blu-ray , blu ray , bluray , computer , copier , Dune Hd Smart B1 1080p Media Player , home cinema , Nvidia , rip , ripper , shield

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