|
Saukkis posted:Not a big issue with software RAID. Create a RAID5 from three 250 GB partitions and RAID1 from the remaining two 250 GB. You lose 250 GB compared to three 500 GB drive, but it's better than using the 500 GB drives as RAID1 and keeping the 250 GB drive standalone. Partition each drive into a smallish chunk that you think all future drives will round to, say 50 or 100 GB. Then create many RAID 5 volumes with 1 "stripe" on each drive. Then use LVM to cat those drives together as 1 volume. If a drive dies, all of the small RAID 5 volumes lose 1 stripe and can be rebuilt the same as you would a single RAID 5 volume. It just helps if you script the process so you don't make a mistake.
|
#
¿
May 12, 2008 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 21:33 |
|
|
CeciPipePasPipe posted:Couldn't you just install a ZFS capable OS in a virtual machine and attach some small virtual hard drives to play around with right now? Or even just raid a couple of loopback-device-mounted files?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2008 22:20
|
|
|
CeciPipePasPipe posted:Why do you need such huge volumes or physical disks even? If you just want to play around with a RAID solution to get a feeling for how its tools work and how it handles failures, surely a couple of 1GB "drives" would be more than enough. I may migrate it back to hardware at some point, but I have too many other things to spend money on right now so that's at least 6 months out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2008 06:16
|
|
|
AngelTK posted:So if I were to purchase a hardware based RAID controller, what would you recommend, or I guess a better question would be, what site out there has objective reviews of all these hardware based RAID controllers out there? RAID 5 doesn't eat up THAT much CPU. I've been running a software RAID 5 on FreeBSD on a P3 700 for years without any major slowness. The one thing you have to watch out for is that early era Pentium M chips had major problems with RAID 5 calculations causing them to slow to a grind where far lesser chips would sail along without problems. It's a known bug, so you should be able to find out when it was resolved and avoid chips that suffer from that problem. Obviously you don't want to chew up your CPU on RAID work when you're running a major database or server, but it's more than sufficient for home use even when editing video.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2008 10:22
|
|
|
optik posted:I am looking at creating a 3-disk RAID5 array with Ubuntu as the host OS, I have found plenty of tutorials on using mdadm to create the RAID array but when it comes to LVM I am having issues, could any of you point me to a tutorial on creating a LVM volume that is expandable in the future. http://www.gagme.com/greg/linux/raid-lvm.php I had some trouble getting the page to load, but after about 3 tries it worked.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2009 17:34
|
|
|
frogbs posted:Having just read your cautious, but very sane advice, I think i've shied away from building, or even buying an array/NAS, at least for the time being. I computed the cost per Gigabyte, and right now, its still cheaper for us to burn each program/show to DVD and keep it in an archive room. No one has to worry about maintaining the array, and the only way we'd lose all our data is if something totally catastrophic happens. The only downside is that we have to burn each disc, which takes time, and that archiving each dvd on a shelf takes up much more space than a 3u case. DVDs are a highly unreliable media over a 5-10 year period.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2009 17:03
|
|
|
gggiiimmmppp posted:Yeah, I just talked to my sister and they're getting 2 years of the family plan from us for christmas. I'm doing the same but I'm also getting my mom a 1 TB single USB drive she can plug in once a month. She will be using Time Machine but a script would be just as good. I've seen corporate IT double failures including off-site backups so for my really important stuff I like to have a 3rd option and just keep it as simple as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
Would Raid 6 in an N40L give you double-parity AND dynamic expansion if you wanted to start with fewer drives?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 09:04
|
|
|
Personal experience... Having run RAID5 at home for the last 8-10 years I'm pretty comfortable with the limitation of a capped volume size and then building a new system/array in 3-5 years to just copy my data. Expansion is really only practical for those on an extremely tight budget or anyone building a system with far more room for expansion. In the time it will take to fill a starter volume, it will be nearly impossible to find drives that match the size of today's drives. I can still (barely) find 200 GB PATA drives for my oldest array but the cost and power consumption make that pointless.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
Newegg lists the max memory on those at 8 GB. Can you go higher?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 21:33 |
|
|
LmaoTheKid posted:Unless you're doing dedupe/compression, there's really no reason to have that much ram with ZFS. I was asking about memory capacity to consolidate 3 systems at home into a single box by running some VMs. I realize the cpu isn't great, but again this is for home use.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 20:01
|
|