[SwissElite]

Hi everyone!

I am planning to buy a new computer, with some decent amount of storage. i would like to keep my files on that computer and use it as a backup-device for other computers (at the same time as it is my media computer with XBMC).

So far, I am considering buying 3 or 4 S-ATA 2 devices of Western Digital with 2TB each to form a Raid, so that if one of those HDDs breaks down, my data is still save.

Now I read here
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/raid5-vs-raid10.html
that raid 10 is better if one has not a professional raid controller. I would like to use the one form the mainboard.

thus, my questions are:

1. Should i use Raid 10? (or 5?)
2. What happens if the mainboard breaks down? Can i continue working with the raid-system on a different mainboard?

regards!

[poofyhairguy]

1. Should i use Raid 10? (or 5?)

If you are using old-style RAID then RAID 6 is best. But honestly for media most around here pick two choices: ZFS or Unraid. Some use Flexraid.

2. What happens if the mainboard breaks down? Can i continue working with the raid-system on a different mainboard?

regards!

With software Linux RAID, ZFS, or Unraid you can.

[SwissElite]

im lost... i assumed you would have to specify somewhere in the bios that you want to keep certain storages as a raid.... obvioulsy.. im wrong...


what i want in the end is a windows 7 that shows only one (storage) disk, although there are 3 or four of them.. and if one of those fails, i can replace it and my data is still there...

ZFS seems to be based in UNIX, Unraid seems to be an option to build a nas storage (http://www.nasstorageserver.com/2010/03/...me-unraid/)... im not sure if im understanding it correctly...but why do i need additional software? are u refering as "old-style" raid to a "hardware" raid- where you do it the way i dindicated above, in bios, and there is a "software"-way where you somehow create the raid by using a program? im lost

[teaguecl]

im lost... i assumed you would have to specify somewhere in the bios that you want to keep certain storages as a raid.... obvioulsy.. im wrong...


what i want in the end is a windows 7 that shows only one (storage) disk, although there are 3 or four of them.. and if one of those fails, i can replace it and my data is still there...

ZFS seems to be based in UNIX, Unraid seems to be an option to build a nas storage (http://www.nasstorageserver.com/2010/03/...me-unraid/)... im not sure if im understanding it correctly...but why do i need additional software? are u refering as "old-style" raid to a "hardware" raid- where you do it the way i dindicated above, in bios, and there is a "software"-way where you somehow create the raid by using a program? im lost

You are not as lost as you think, everything you stated is correct. Poofy was referring to hardware raid as "old-style". The main problem with HW raid is that it is controller specific. If your raid controller dies you have to replace it with the exact same controller - same manufacturer, model, batch, firmware revision, etc. - or else your disks won't be readable. Using SW raid eliminates this issue, since the "raid controller" is really just software - but at the expense of performance.
The big problem with raid (both HW and SW) is that it's not really the right tool for the job for media libraries. Media libraries need a moderate amount of protection from disk failure (since their contents are replaceable) but huge amount of storage. It is much cheaper to get this combination with Unraid or ZFS than with traditional raid.
It sounds to me like you want this system to work as both a data backup of your important files, as well as your media library storage. If that's the case, you'll have to decide which compromises are best for you.

[Ogi010]

I'm still hoping some kind of solution presents itself for the next version of WHS. Since drive extender is getting dropped from Vail, would rather have some form of data redundancy, and I hope it doesn't have to be one of those hardware RAID types but I suspect it will

[eskro]

im reading on alot on RAID.10 and i think its good for media storage...

its faster then RAID.5 & your data is also protected from hard drive failure....

at least, i believe....

[poofyhairguy]

RAID 10 uses WAY too much HD space for parity to be useful for media storage. I would use it in a heartbeat for some critical record (that or a ZFS directly), but with a mediaserver you want a decent amount of protection with a large amount of usable space because HD files are BIG.

RAID 5 kinda provides that, but in 2011 trusting such large drives on each other seems foolhardy. Unraid gets around this by not striping the drives (therefore making them more safe from each other's failure), but with RAID 5 striping is mandatory. So it is better to use RAID 6, because then at least two drives have to die before the entire array is lost.

[eskro]

true about RAID.6 ,,,,
two drives have to die before all is lost....

Performance-wise,
RAID.6 is generally slightly worse than RAID 5 in terms of writes
due to the added overhead of more parity calculations,
but may be slightly faster in random reads due to spreading of data over one more disk.

Wow, ok....
RAID.6 is out of question....
wayyyy to much $$$$$

guess im back to RAID5 or RAID5+SPARE

or how do you guys store your media ??

[TeknoJnky]

Wow, ok....
RAID.6 is out of question....
wayyyy to much $$$$$

guess im back to RAID5 or RAID5+SPARE

uhm, raid5+ spare is the same thing as raid6 except you have to rebuild AFTER a disk failure (putting the other disks at risk to fail), whereas raid6 only rebuilds after the failed disk is replaced with a new disk.

raid 5 protects from one disk failure, but if a disk fails or any time the array is rebuilding, your data is NOT PROTECTED. Even with a HOT spare, your data is NOT PROTECTED during the rebuild.

with raid 6, if a disk fails, your data is still protected even during a rebuild.

If a second disk fails in raid 6, then your data is unprotected.

In any case, no raid is ever a substitute for backups.

or how do you guys store your media ??

I have 3 readynas, one for video (using dual redundancy/raid-6), one for audio (using single redunandcy/raid-5), and the other has backups of imporant stuff from the other 2 (uses single redundancy/raid-5).

I can't fit everything from both nas on to the backup nas, but I backup stuff that is important to me.

[eskro]

uhm,,,
ok,,,
let me put it this way,,,

If i got 1 PC downstairs, close to my ISP's Internet Modem and my Router,
and 1 HTPC upstairs connected to my HDTV....
since i want both PC's to access the same DATA,
i suppose having a centralized storage place would be the way to go...

But now, which?
a NAS Enclosure with a RAID5 configuration Like this??
Rosewill 4x3.5" SATA Bays Enclosure, RAID 0, 1, 1+0, 5, 5+spare, JBOD --> Here! ($130)

thx

[darkscout]

And unless you have big $$$ to spend, never do hardware raid.

[eskro]

meaning?

[ubuntuf4n]

JBOD with mirroring is also an option.

[eskro]

but is this good?

Rosewill 4x3.5" SATA Bays Enclosure, RAID 0, 1, 1+0, 5, 5+spare, JBOD --> Here! ($130)

[poofyhairguy]

a NAS Enclosure with a RAID5 configuration Like this??
Rosewill 4x3.5" SATA Bays Enclosure, RAID 0, 1, 1+0, 5, 5+spare, JBOD --> Here! ($130)

thx

That is not a NAS enclosure, that is a PCIe Multiplier using a Sil PCIe card. You still need a whole computer for that device to work- it is basically like a external HD enclosure.

Honestly eskro, as someone who loves hardware like I do- BUILD A NAS!!!

Really, no NAS competes $ for $ with a homebuilt server. Plus it will have better parts (that YOU chose), more bays for storage, and the ability to use awesome NAS OSes (like FreeNAS or Unraid).

Prebuilt NASes are for mom storing her pictures. If you are gonna store media, and lots of it, then nothing beats a NAS you put together yourself.

Do you have some parts sitting around? List them and I will help you fill in the gaps.