RAID
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
ITT - raid configurations. Post your raid configurations, judge each other. GO!
>>52102974
Two toshibas 2TB in raid 0.
#YOLO
>>52102981
Software / data / media or combination?
RAID is for people unable to take intelligent backups, wasting space on stupendous redundancy.
Raid5 here.
4TB available.
>>52103029
what about raid 0?
>muh speed
>>52103013
OS is in a 120GB SSD.
So nothing important is in the spinning rust.
BIOS raid 10 here with 4 3tb seagates
i shat myself when the array failed after i upgraded my mobo bios
luckily theres info on the net on how to fix it
>>52103108
>4 3tb seagates
shiggy diggy
>>52103120
they are the bare bones non consumer version without any fluff
so far none has failed on me
meanwhile every single WD green ive ever owned failed on me and had 2 blacks failed
>>52103029
>Using raid as a backup.
I use it to combine physical disks into single volumes, like it was meant for.
LVM here btw.
2x1tb samsung striped for torrent dl and ftp ul folders, 5x2tb samsung for storage in glorious raidz.
>>52103182
>like it was meant for.
Redundant
Array
of
Inexpensive
Drives
I have the cheapest 2.5" raid I could find from ebay. I know I could have done the same with software.
>>52102974/dev/md127:
Version : 1.2
Creation Time : Thu Jun 26 16:35:00 2014
Raid Level : raid6
Array Size : 46882535424 (44710.67 GiB 48007.72 GB)
Used Dev Size : 3906877952 (3725.89 GiB 4000.64 GB)
Raid Devices : 14
Total Devices : 14
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Update Time : Mon Dec 28 15:53:55 2015
State : clean
Active Devices : 14
Working Devices : 14
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0
Layout : left-symmetric
Chunk Size : 512K
ZFS RAID-Z or bust. It's like you don't even care about your data.
4x4tb WD Reds in raid 10 with an adaptec 6805e
>buy 4x4tb
>put in RAID
>get 4tb
>???
>profit
>>52103230
Holy shit. Hownmuch of that space have you used up?
850 EVO @ Raid 0
>>52103253
Do my research for me. I heard zfs or something wasn't open sores. Is this true?
>>52103749
it says...
Can anyone elaborate a bit on 'software' raid vs hardware raid? Does it make an actual difference?
>>52103749
35T
>>52103788
software raids used to be almost impossible because of the CPU load they generated, but with modern CPUs, this is not a problem anymore. they are easier to set up and use and don't require special hardware.
for most applications, software raids are the right choice. if you can't think of a reason for a hardware raid, you definitely don't need one.
>>52103772
No.
>>52103774
>>52103790
Sorry. I'm retarded. What are (you) using it for?
>>52103871
mostly movies (24T), some TV shows as well (9.7T) and some random stuff like programs, games (1.5T)
>>52103836
Cool thanks guy
2x 120GB ssd in zfs raid 1 for the os (kingston hyperx fury)
2x 2TB hdd in btrfs raid 1 for data (wd red)
Just werks(tm)
Feel free to rate
>>52104487
whats ur OS
what are you running /doing on it
>>52102974â””$ sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
Version : 1.2
Creation Time : Sat Dec 28 17:49:58 2013
Raid Level : raid6
Array Size : 11720534016 (11177.57 GiB 12001.83 GB)
Used Dev Size : 2930133504 (2794.39 GiB 3000.46 GB)
Raid Devices : 6
Total Devices : 6
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Update Time : Mon Dec 28 20:03:32 2015
State : clean
Active Devices : 6
Working Devices : 6
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0
Layout : left-symmetric
Chunk Size : 512K
Name : MINISERV-2:0 (local to host MINISERV-2)
UUID : 76e0feb4:b604b216:9fb3d65a:35ce93cc
Events : 6161
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
0 8 1 0 active sync /dev/sda1
1 8 17 1 active sync /dev/sdb1
3 8 33 2 active sync /dev/sdc1
6 8 81 3 active sync /dev/sdf1
5 8 65 4 active sync /dev/sde1
4 8 49 5 active sync /dev/sdd1
>>52103230
>>52104694
Why raid6?
>>52106244
Double parity so you can be a cool guy when you lose disks
4 4TB disks in a ZFS striped mirror VDEV (similar to RAID10)
>>52106244
It's safer, no other reason than that for me.
>>52106244
i can't make full backups, so raid6 is the next best thing
>>52106258
Yes
>>52103029
Never mind life threatening real time applications, such as at a hospital.
How much worse is ZFS copies=2 than a proper raid? How does it compare with mirroring? I believe you can only mirror on identical size drives but I expect copies=2 will work across many different drives.
No RAID
500gb SSD - OS
3x250gb ssd JBOD - Games
2TB - Data/Downloads
3TB - Porn/Music
3TB Ext USB3.0 - TV Shows
4TB Ext USB3.0 - Movies
>>52103029
You are retarded.
Tell Google raid is for people who are lazy with backups.
>Implying redundancy using raid is bad
Is this guy right about RAID 5?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2OxG2UjiV4
>>52103200
Kek. Man what an idiot that guy is.
I use two separate raid 1s in my server. Nothing special
>>52109572
A raid6 is much better. Not watching that faggot video
2 1tb 850 evo ssds in raid 0 + 2 tb hdd in raid 1 with the two ssds. Or for short raid 10, or 1+0, or 0+1. Literally nothing better than this.
>>52102974
Production:
Everything is JBOD using storage spaces. Individual slices determine if there is RAID 5 / 10 / whatever.
32T raw storage, all SATA spindles
Testing:
- Boot is RAID 1
- Local storage is RAID 10 or RAID 6
- SOFS and Storage Spaces Direct are JBOD with individual slices configured as needed
- All SSD tier storage is RAID 1/5/10
70TB RAW split between SAS SSD, SAS 600GB 15K, and 2TB SATA.
>>52109764
>2 1tb 850 evo ssds in raid 0 + 2 tb hdd in raid 1 with the two ssds. Or for short raid 10, or 1+0, or 0+1. Literally nothing better than this.
>>52109799
Well I just looked it up, and it seems I was wrong about it being raid 10, 1+0, or 0+1. But how's it called then? A 2tb raid 0 volume (2 ssds in raid 0) in raid 1 with a 2 tb hdd.
>>52109865
It's two separate RAID volumes. A RAID 0 and a RAID 1.
>>52109930
But isn't the raid 0 'inside' the raid 1.
>>52110108
>But isn't the raid 0 'inside' the raid 1.
No.
>>52110158
Well okay, I guess it doesn't matter after all. As long as it works like it should, which it does.
>>52103159
Mate the 3TB ones are known to shit themselves
>>52110546
Yea 3tb drives biggest fail rate. Didn't matter which brand
>>52109572
>Is this guy right about RAID 5?
Not at all.
A single disk error could corrupt a file.
But it won't make the controller drop the entire array, that would be retarded.
>>52103029
>RAID is for people unable to take intelligent backups, wasting space on stupendous redundancy.
RAID uses less space than a backup.
You're cheaper off doing two backups and one RAID, than doing three backups.
Plus you get a nice performance boost, less downtime, and less hassle.
ZFS RAID-Z for most things
RAID5 in a few non-BSD hypervisors
RAID0 in caching servers
>>52110228
>Well okay, I guess it doesn't matter after all. As long as it works like it should, which it does.
It depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you want redundancy on your SSD's, given what you've said about your current configuration, you do NOT have it.
judge away
>>52110934
Holy fuck. That's the only reason why I bought the hdd.
>>52110971
You should be using BTRFS with synology by now
>>52110991
Mirror the SSD's, then you'll get redundancy.
Speed, Redundancy, Capacity. Pick any 2.
RAID is NOT a backup solution, when will you fuckwits get that through your heads. I can't tell you how many idiots call in to tech support with a failed array and say their array IS their backup! The IDIOCY! Guess what... RAID controllers CAN and DO go south... which can corrupt your arrary. Multiple drives CAN fail at the same time or in rapid succession.
Raid does not count as a backup. Not once. Not ever.
>>52111020
Isn't that raid 1?
>>52110991
What you have is a RAID 0 with SSD's that are superfast but literally have half redundancy and 2 HDD's with RAID 1 with redundancy but only half capacity.
>>52111038
Shut up cunt as long as you know what's going on RAID is a form of backup, just not a full one. It's a backup in the case of drive failure.
>>52111009
Not supported with my model.
>>52111055
>Isn't that raid 1?
Yes.
>>52110787
the chance of the controller or another disk failing when rebuilding an array goes up significantly, that's why raid 6 should always be recommended as if one disk fails you have redundancy, a chance to back your data up, and aren't shit out of luck if you want to rebuild your array before buying a spare controller
>>52111071
>What you have is a RAID 0 with SSD's that are superfast but literally have half redundancy and 2 HDD's with RAID 1 with redundancy but only half capacity.
i thought he had the two 1TB SSDs in raid 0 and was mirroring those 2TB to another 2TB HDD
>>52111038
>RAID controllers CAN and DO go south... which can corrupt your arrary. Multiple drives CAN fail at the same time or in rapid succession.
I have had this happen in years. Last card to do this was an Adaptec AAA-133.
The other side of this is that the array data is stored on the drive AND on the controller.
If you are simply looking for protection from a drive failure RAID is fine.
Protip - AWS, Azure, Office365, Google, etc do not do any backups*. Everything is redundant at the service level.
*Except for the service re-seed data, and that's on tape.
>>52111071
As long as you know what's going on! LOL....
You sound just like the experts that call in without a backup crying and wanting to escalate because they don't want to get fired for being a completely incompetent fuckwit.
Have fun knowing what's going on when your array gets nuked.
>>52102974
4x300 GB 15K SAS drives in raid 0 here
its fast c:
>>52111159
why not just 4 SSDs?
>>52111071
Wait, what? Well. I got 2 1tb ssds in raid 0. And I've got the raid 0 volume in raid 1 with a 2 tb hdd. So a 2tb raid 0 volume in raid 1 with a 2tb hdd. Is that not redundant? If not, how do I fix it?
>>52111186
Oh yea that is. Why did you even do that
>>52111038
>>52111142
>2015
>using cheap, shitty hardware RAID controllers instead of superior software RAID
>>52111186
yes, it's redundant, it's fine.
>>52111213
software raid.... lulz... 2/10... nice try m8
>>52111171
because money
>>52111213
>>using cheap, shitty hardware RAID controllers instead of superior software RAID
This
What the fuck is wrong with you people
Hardware raid sucks
I don't need a shitty processor when I already have a good one in my PC.
>>52111213
>using cheap, shitty hardware RAID controllers instead of superior software RAID
Define cheap and shitty? And a large portion of my storage hardware is essentially software, except for VAULT, boot, and a couple FastCache arrays...
>>52111264
>I don't need a shitty processor when I already have a good one in my PC.
So you'd rather dedicate CPU time to an array rebuild. Have fun with that...
>>52111186
>I got 2 1tb ssds in raid 0
This is where you have no redundancy.
>>52111322
but that raid 0 array is in raid 1 with a 2tb hdd
>>52111243
>>52111270
raid controllers without cache (BBU/NVRAM) are completely useless. low-end raid controllers make absolutely no sense at all.
high-end raid controllers are fine, but they cost a lot and 99% of people building a RAID for personal use can't afford them.
>>52111243
Software raid is better in every way add long as it's not your boot device
>>52111369
Low end psudo RAID controllers aren't hardware RAID. It's a software RAID with BIOS support.
I'm running a mix of Dell H800's, HP P800's, and HP P421's
>>52111345
>but that raid 0 array is in raid 1 with a 2tb hdd
RAID does block level reading and writing. So again, that's not how RAID works.
BUT, if that is actually how you're setup, you're read and writes, well writes anyway, are waiting on the spindle.
Set the SSD's to a RAID 1, and give zero fucks, or leave them as a RAID 0 and keep your data on the RAID 1.
Or don't and be willing to loose data.
>>52111208
>inb4 4k porn collection.
It's for me and my dad's company. We build kitchens/bathrooms/cafeterias/... for other companies. If the ssds were to fail, we'd likely lose a few hundred thousand euros. And don't ask why we don't just back the projects up online or use hdds or any other more reliable solution. Ever since I started using ssds, I just can't get work done on a computer that doesn't have one. And the projects can get up to 4-5gbs, we have 3d renders and such of all projects, there are 3 computers that have the same set up (2 1tb ssds + 1 2tb hdd). And I don't see the advantage of pro ssds, as we'll probably replace the ssds by the time they fail. And our customers like the fact that we even care about our computers, I've actually helped 3 of our customers with their computers, for a price of course.
>>52111549
still, you should at least be doing regular backups and storing them at a different location.
>>52111549
Just get a Crashplan or Backblaze account. Seriously
Only 60 dollars per year for unlimited backups. If it's for a business you have no reason not to do this.
>>52111632
No. Just run a raspberry pi with fucking 4tb external and rsync the shit to it remotely..
>>52111601
Well, I do back the most important projects up on sd cards of which I give one copy to the customer and another I keep in a safe (this makes my dad think I give a fuck about our customers), but the problem is, after 2 days, the project on the computer might look very different than the copy on the sd cards.
>>52111632
Well, maybe in the future, when I feel like it.
So in short: Keeping the back-ups up to date with the computers would take some time, time that could be used to find new customers or to make sure we don't lose current ones.
zaidz2
>>52111902
/g/ - Muh raspberry pi
Seriously what is wrong with you
>>52111943
Back-ups are basically done daily at midnight or something. If there is literally thousands of dollars on the line, i don't see how the fuck you're not doing this already.
>>52112067
Well, I find it to be secure enough as it is now. My dad also likes to have everything local and not depending on the internet, our company could actually do fine without the internet right now. That gives my dad a good feeling, and me a lot of money. The latter is what I care about. When my dad dies (probably in ~20 years), I'll sell the company to the highest bidder, and live the last 20 years of my life in unimaginable luxury.
>>52112067
I gave him the cheaper, faster, more control, solution.
Currently using RAID 50.
>>52102974
>disk 0
>A1, A2, A3...
>no A0
At least use some fucking consistency in your numbering.
>>52106792
Wrong
>>52103029
RAID is not and never will be a backup. It just provides redundancy. Except for RAID 0 which just provides speed.
Cant believe i am replying to this bate.
>>52108975
>>52109420
My favourite anti-raid argument is "everyone just uses the cloud anyway!"
>what do you think the cloud has?
>>52104487
what do you do with this thing
>>52104587
>>52116735
Home server basically
It runs proxmox which made that zfs raid automagically, otherwise I might have used btrfs for the os too
Three virtual servers currently, for general use, email and owncloud
>>52112184
>We build kitchens/bathrooms/cafeterias/... for other companies
About that selling the company and living in luxury part... if the company exists solely to enable your work, it's worthless without you in it. No matter how much revenue you make now.
How much should i charge for setting raid 5?
Freenas, buying hardware and of cource support and teaching dumb os x bitch to use it.
Or should i just run
>>52103029
>parity
>wasting space
wat
that's not even slightly a viable argument
it's like you're thinking RAID = RAID 1
>>52102974
Used to have 2 disks in RAID 1, but later i've decided to break the array and currently i'm using the second one as offline backup.
Have you guys heard of zfsguru ?
>>52117048
In 20 years the name of the company will probably be worth more than the money we've made until now.
>>52102974
2 x 2TB WD Greens in RAID 0
OS and important docs are on 240GB SSD
Thinking of getting a some 1TB SSDs (when they are released) and running RAID 10
How fucked am I?
This is my colo'd server, 4x1TB HDDs.Personalities : [raid1] [raid10]
md2 : active raid10 sdc3[2] sdd3[3] sdb3[1] sda3[0]
1945450496 blocks super 1.2 512K chunks 2 near-copies [4/4] [UUUU]
bitmap: 0/15 pages [0KB], 65536KB chunk
md1 : active (auto-read-only) raid10 sdd2[3] sdc2[2] sdb2[1] sda2[0]
3903488 blocks super 1.2 512K chunks 2 near-copies [4/4] [UUUU]
md0 : active raid1 sdd1[3] sdc1[2] sda1[0] sdb1[1]
1950720 blocks super 1.2 [4/4] [UUUU]
unused devices: <none>
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/md2 1.9T 610G 1.3T 33% /
udev 10M 0 10M 0% /dev
/dev/md0 1.8G 35M 1.7G 3% /boot
>>52102974
Four 500GB seagates in RAID 5
only matter of time when it fails
>>52103029
RAID =! Back-up
At best RAID is the junk-food back-up solution.
The real function of RAID is data availability. The performance benefits of RAID have greatly diminished in the era of solid-state media.
Tell me why this is shit and how I can do it better, please.
>>52102974
Two cheap 120GB SSDs and one 2TB WD HDD connected via a Marvell HyperDuo chip
Because it's cheaper than a 2TB SSD for 80% of the performance.
>>52103029
Data storage facilities
RAIDZ1 on my nas
