Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Longinus00
Dec 29, 2005
Ur-Quan

univbee posted:

Trying to put together a colossal server, I'm talking one of those Norco 20-bay cases. I'm mulling over my approach, anyone had any success with 20+ hard drives in WHSv1? What are the biggest hard drives that exist that don't have that 4k issue, 1.5 TB? I'm thinking of either building it that way or doing some sort of ZFS system with a 10-drive array with two redundant drives, keeping the other 10 drives for eventual size upgrading (e.g. start with 10x 2TB drives in bays 1-10, when that's no longer enough get 10x 4TB drives for bays 11-20, transfer data and destroy the 10x 2TB array, replace the initial drives with 8TB drives in a few years, rinse/repeat), I'm just paranoid about data loss; WHSv1 at least lets you recover the data from bare drives without the server if poo poo hits the fan. Anyone with experience in these size ranges?

One huge advantage raid(including zraid) has over drive extender is that you get way more effective disk space. All drive extender does is make a duplicate of the file somewhere else so it's effectively a slow raid 1 (ignoring the landing area which is separate). Raid 1 with 10 1TB disks is 5TB usable but raid 5 with 10 1TB disks is 9 TB usable. I would advise against drive extender if you have large arrays.

*Insert spiel about how raid isn't backup here.*

Longinus00 fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Feb 25, 2011

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Longinus00
Dec 29, 2005
Ur-Quan

VerySolidSnake posted:

Whichever is the best. I have a 16TB (expandable to 24TB) machine ready to order with 2gb of ram. It's a backup of a backup so I just need as much space as possible without any mirroring on the server. WHS really seems to be the best, and now FreeNAS is out of the question since it requires 1gb of ram for every 1TB of space.

Isn't that only if you turn dedup on? I'm sure if you could dedup with WHS it would eat up ram too.

Longinus00
Dec 29, 2005
Ur-Quan

EC posted:

I'm thinking (always thinking!) about rebuilding my server. Again. I'm looking at this case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811352005 Which will hold 10 HDDs just fine and I can probably put my Coolermaster 4in3 bay in it as well. I know it's expensive as hell, but We Got Served loved it and I love, love the style.

What do y'all think?

For half the price you could get something like this.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147155

Longinus00
Dec 29, 2005
Ur-Quan
Welcome to market segregation, maybe you've noticed how there's a windows 7 home and home premium? I believe windows SBS will let you use all your ram.

Longinus00
Dec 29, 2005
Ur-Quan

JnnyThndrs posted:

This idiot is full of :tinfoil:.

MS doesn't give a flying assfuck about how much RAM you're using, and the RAM constraints of a 32-bit OS(all of them, not just Windows) have been well-documented forever. It doesn't even make any sense on any level, 64-bit Windows isn't any more expensive than 32-bit.

He's talking about PAE and windows. Microsoft does care about how much RAM you're using or else they wouldn't limit how much ram windows could use. Try sticking 16GB into windows 7 home basic and see what happens.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Longinus00
Dec 29, 2005
Ur-Quan

kapinga posted:

Cross-posting this with the Win8 thread:


I don't know what the future of WHS as a platform is, but if it exists this feature will be present.

That reads to be much more of an answer to drobo than it is to zfs.

  • Locked thread