Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bhampster]

I have 4 inexpensive NAS units that each have 4x4TB NAS drives in Raid 5 config.

I read some stuff today from people who hate Raid and started to wonder about maybe changing my storage.

I wonder if I could stuff all 16 drives into a single server... There really isn't a need for my movies collection to be running 24/7 when I think about it... some days I don't even use it.

I have the discs which serve as backups so having raid may be overkill... (though converting them from disc to MKV is very time consuming so I"m still a bit undecided on that front.)

-Brian

[bhampster]

I see a 15 bay case pretty cheap ...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA0724941532&cm_re=server_case-_-11-147-164-_-Product

I guess I could keep a spare drive out of the 16 esp if I was planning on doing away with parity anyway... or if I changed the system to rely on a single parity drive.

I'm still not real sold either direction (keeping what I have or changing everything.) .. Just exploring options.

Some would say ..(maybe) keep the NAS units you have and just ditch the raid...well I could do that but it seems on this NAS (Lenovo IX4 300D) when you have things in JBOD format all drives are treated as 1 and there's no keeping things seperate so I imagine a single HD failure could be like the whole 12GB being lost. (I should look that stuff up and find out more.) Edit - I did read up and JBOD on a NAS means 1 HD fail brings down the whole pool. bummer. Quote "This configuration does not provide disk failure protection; failure of one drive will cause the entire array to be lost."

[blgentry]

Some ramblings on the subjects you're talking about:

In a Data Center environment, I can't recall the last time I saw a problem with a HARDWARE RAID controller.  IBM, HP, even Dell have been very solid in my experience.  Really massive storage tends to be in large disk arrays (30 to 150 drives) that are in RAID sets and get carved up and presented to hosts for their use.  I can't recall EVER having a failure in one of these large boxes that resulted in data loss.  In both big and small RAID boxes, I've seen disk failures.  But RAID took care of the rebuilds and all the data was safe.

Not to say that it doesn't happen!  I'm just saying, in my professional career with computers, RAID failures don't seem to be that common.  Maybe I'm just lucky or have only had exposure to really nice RAID units.

On the other hand, RAID is not a backup.  So you're failing from the start if you're not incorporating backups of the data that you care about.  You have 3+1 drives in each enclosure (RAID5), which implies up to 12 TB of data in each enclosure.  Times 4 enclosures, that means about 48 TB of data (video I think) that you probably care about.  For me, job #1 is to get a rolling backup of this data going.  Otherwise, when you lose a whole enclosure due to your expected total RAID failure, you lose 12 TB of data that you can't get back without serious effort.

Your idea of putting them all into a large PC type case raises huge red flags for me.  Heat is the enemy of drives and that many drives needs forced air cooling.  I wouldn't try it myself.  Being a DIY guy is fun and all.  You can save money and claim "I did this all myself!".  But what happens when the whole thing overheats because you aren't experienced enough to know what the proper temperature is, and you lose a bunch of data?

Personally, I would be looking into a plan for where my data is going in the next couple of years.  Is it growing?  If so, how much do you expect to have in 1 to 2 years?  Plan for that. If it's pretty much done, then figure out how to get your data into reliable enclosures that won't make you wonder if your data is safe.  At the same time, budget or purchase backup drives.  Backup drives don't need to have RAID protection; they're just backups.

The good news is, drive sizes continue to grow.  8 TB drives are twice as big as 4 TB, so you only need half of your current drives for the same data storage.  Which reduces your likely hood of drive failure.  The more drives you have, the more often you can expect one to fail.

Brian.

[bhampster]

Thanks

That's really helpful info.

I have only filled 3 of the 4 NAS units so far with about 1500 Blu...

I still buy Blu but not like I used to.

I did have a HD fail .. once... I replaced it and the array rebuilt and presto no problem.

Now, the backups are the actual discs themselves. And I don't want to backup them more than that.

So... That considered I suppose losing 25% capacity isn't a big deal since it keeps me from having to re encode many movies. (Each NAS holds about 500 blu rays.)

You bring a good point about how much it will grow... I really don't know ... I have so many movies I like but they do make more .. haha

I guess I like the setup I have... I can always buy more 4 bay NAS units... They can recover from failure and if the whole array goes down in one unit at this point it's only a small part of my library.

So, ... thanks again.. I started using JRiver to emulate someone's kaliedescape setup and those system use a Raid very similar to Raid 5.

-Brian (also)_

[blgentry]

Now, the backups are the actual discs themselves. And I don't want to backup them more than that.

Well, yes, the discs are "backups".  But how long does it take to rip a BD?  Let's pretend you have a screaming fast BD drive and associated hard drive and computer.  Let's say 10 minutes.  For 500 BDs, that's 5000 minutes which is 83 hours!  Plus finding all the discs in their jewel cases, loading them, unloading them, and putting the jewel cases back where ever you keep them.  That's an insane amount of effort to recover from a dead array.

How much is your time worth compared to the cost of some backup drives?

Brian.

[bhampster]

Makes sense.

Plus there are now "archive" drives that are huge.... So I will consider backing up the library.

I'm running out of other things to upgrade anyway... he he...

Thanks,