Planning a RAID array, need some advice

[Nemockulous]

So I'm currently in the planning stages of a storage solution that will serve as a backup and cold storage for old raw video files and backup of important data.

 

My options:

1. Install 6x 4TB WD reds in RAID 1+0 (reduce software RAID overhead) [12TB]
2. Buy dedicated RAID card for current PC, use it to house 6 Drives (6x 4TB WD Reds (RAID 6)) [16TB]
3. Buy case + Powersupply for old X58 based system, run FreeNAS or Linux based solution from this system (6x 4TB WD Reds (RAID 6)) [16TB] :
   -----EVGA X58 Mobo
   -----CORSAIR XMS3 12GB (6 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600
   -----Intel Core i7-920 Bloomfield Quad-Core 2.66GHz
4. Purchase new MoBo/CPU/RAM/Case/PSU for server system, install FreeNAS/Linux solution (6x 4TB WD Reds (RAID 6)) [16TB]

I'm really just not sure which direction to pursue at the moment, and that system in (3.) hasn't been booted or run in over 4 years, I just have it lying around.

Overall the goal for this setup is a backup/cold storage array, but I also might use it as a media stream array as well, so as far as performance goes it needs to be able to handle streaming across the network fairly well. 

 

I appreciate any input and advice you can offer. I've dabbled with small RAID arrays in the past, but this size and type are out of my comfort area to tackle alone. Thanks!

[martward]

Unless you really need that extra 4 TB, I'd go with raid 10. As far as I know it is faster with writing and with rebuilding if a disk fails. Also you won't need a RAID card so it is cheaper. I would go with a FreeNAS solution in RAID 10, especially if you have very large files. 

[Arty]

23 posts, no avatar, and bronze contribution  = Dedication 

[Nemockulous]

23 posts, no avatar, and bronze contribution  = Dedication 

Don't quite see why it matters, but ok. Is my avatar better? Does that satisfy you? Or is post my asking for help on a forum which I thought was full of helpful people invalid because my post count is 23 (24 now)? 

Please let me know, as I am curious on your answers.

[Arty]

Don't quite see why it matters, but ok. Is my avatar better? Does that satisfy you? Or is post my asking for help on a forum which I thought was full of helpful people invalid because my post count is 23 (24 now)? 

Please let me know, as I am curious on your answers.

im just admiring/congratulating/thanking/etc all positive feelings .

[Nemockulous]

im just admiring/congratulating/thanking/etc all positive feelings .

Hard to tell if /sarcasm/ is engaged on internet. Apologies if it was taken the wrong way.

[Arty]

Hard to tell if /sarcasm/ is engaged on internet. Apologies if it was taken the wrong way.

np

[Nemockulous]

Unless you really need that extra 4 TB, I'd go with raid 10. As far as I know it is faster with writing and with rebuilding if a disk fails. Also you won't need a RAID card so it is cheaper. I would go with a FreeNAS solution in RAID 10, especially if you have very large files. 

True, and I'm not entirely opposed to doing so. However, when I'm talking about an array that will house potentially 10+TB of data that I don't want to lose, the more I think about it, after one drive fails it's more than a coin flip that IF another drive goes is part of the other 0 side of the RAID 1+0, and all the data is destroyed. The bonus with a RAID 6 is it's double fault tolerant without that coin flip. So maybe I can't rebuild it without a second or third failure, but I could most definitely temp-pull the data to save it externally etc, I dunno. Am I ever going to be in that scenario? probably not. But the though of losing all that data is cringe-worthy. Iunno. This is why I'm here because I'm still super on the fence.

 

Edit: I'm also unsure how a RAID 1+0 rebuilds, does it do so by just re-mirroring the missing drive? Or does it have to rebuild the other RAID 0 array then re-mirror the whole thing? 

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

A friend of mine is running 15 or 16TB (I lost count) in his PC, and I honestly cannot advise this approach.

EDIT : it's 16.25 right now, but there's talks of adding another 3TB)

One ransom virus is all it takes to see all of it get encrypted. Therefore I'd always advise external storage when dealing with large quantities of data. The risk still exists, but it's less likely. I haven't come across too many viruses that look for network drives yet.

So that's my opinion on option 1 and 2.

If you go the FreeNAS route, you could either go RAIDZ1 (which is kinda the same as RAID5) or RAIDZ2 (RAID6). I don't think it's advised to use RAIDZ2 when using only 6 drives, but it is possible nonetheless. That would give you 16TiB minus software overhead ... say 14 to 14.5TB (that's just a guesstimate, so don't shoot me if it turns out to be 13.5TB.

You won't need an i7 for NAS duties, an i3 is plenty. I'm writing to my 8-drive RAIDZ2 array (specs in the post my sig links to) at 125MB/s, and it would be faster if it weren't for my gigabit ethernet ports and home network.

Personally I'd suggest getting a server board, an ECC-compatible CPU and ECC RAM though. Server boards are made with longer lifetime and stability in mind, and the error correction comes in handy when dealing with large and/or important files.

You can of course use old consumer grade parts instead, which would be cheaper. The question is how much life these parts have left, how well they perform for 24/7 NAS duties and how much more electricity they use.

[martward]

True, and I'm not entirely opposed to doing so. However, when I'm talking about an array that will house potentially 10+TB of data that I don't want to lose, the more I think about it, after one drive fails it's more than a coin flip that IF another drive goes is part of the other 0 side of the RAID 1+0, and all the data is destroyed. The bonus with a RAID 6 is it's double fault tolerant without that coin flip. So maybe I can't rebuild it without a second or third failure, but I could most definitely temp-pull the data to save it externally etc, I dunno. Am I ever going to be in that scenario? probably not. But the though of losing all that data is cringe-worthy. Iunno. This is why I'm here because I'm still super on the fence.

 

Edit: I'm also unsure how a RAID 1+0 rebuilds, does it do so by just re-mirroring the missing drive? Or does it have to rebuild the other RAID 0 array then re-mirror the whole thing? 

If you want to go for optimal safety than raid 6 is a little more robust, since more drives may fail at the same time. However, the chance of two drives failing at the same time without any external cause, and the chance of those drives being in the same raid-part (vdisk) as well is very small. So if you replace the drives immediately, or have an extra HDD which can take over immediately when a drive fails (hot swap or something) you're probably going to be fine. You could always get an offsite backup later on if you are really nervous about losing data.

As far as I have understood (I am not an expert but have been doing some investigation myself since I am planning a raid 10 FreeNAS setup somewhere in the future) the new drive will just re-mirror the missing drive, so you're vdisk will stay intact when the drives are swapped.

[Nemockulous]

A friend of mine is running 15 or 16TB (I lost count) in his PC, and I honestly cannot advise this approach.

EDIT : it's 16.25 right now, but there's talks of adding another 3TB)

One ransom virus is all it takes to see all of it get encrypted. Therefore I'd always advise external storage when dealing with large quantities of data. The risk still exists, but it's less likely. I haven't come across too many viruses that look for network drives yet.

So that's my opinion on option 1 and 2.

If you go the FreeNAS route, you could either go RAIDZ1 (which is kinda the same as RAID5) or RAIDZ2 (RAID6). I don't think it's advised to use RAIDZ2 when using only 6 drives, but it is possible nonetheless. That would give you 16TiB minus software overhead ... say 14 to 14.5TB (that's just a guesstimate, so don't shoot me if it turns out to be 13.5TB.

You won't need an i7 for NAS duties, an i3 is plenty. I'm writing to my 8-drive RAIDZ2 array (specs in the post my sig links to) at 125MB/s, and it would be faster if it weren't for my gigabit ethernet ports and home network.

Personally I'd suggest getting a server board, an ECC-compatible CPU and ECC RAM though. Server boards are made with longer lifetime and stability in mind, and the error correction comes in handy when dealing with large and/or important files.

You can of course use old consumer grade parts instead, which would be cheaper. The question is how much life these parts have left, how well they perform for 24/7 NAS duties and how much more electricity they use.

 

I've never heard of a Ransom Virus, and I can't imagine where I'd be on the internet to get one. In my opinion it isn't a strong enough deterrent to not put this array within my system. From what I'm gather from a few posters, using software RAID on my main system to control a RAID 5/6 is not a good option. I could get a RAID card, but still not a great option for within the system. A server as it appears will run ~$1kish alone, in addition to whatever drive I toss in it. I'm not super keen on that.

The alternative then is to run a software controlled RAID 1+0, sacrifice a little capacity for easy implementation, and house it in my current rig.

 

 

If you want to go for optimal safety than raid 6 is a little more robust, since more drives may fail at the same time. However, the chance of two drives failing at the same time without any external cause, and the chance of those drives being in the same raid-part (vdisk) as well is very small. So if you replace the drives immediately, or have an extra HDD which can take over immediately when a drive fails (hot swap or something) you're probably going to be fine. You could always get an offsite backup later on if you are really nervous about losing data.

As far as I have understood (I am not an expert but have been doing some investigation myself since I am planning a raid 10 FreeNAS setup somewhere in the future) the new drive will just re-mirror the missing drive, so you're vdisk will stay intact when the drives are swapped.

 

Have you by chance tried a 6 drive RAID 1+0 on a system that's a daily driver not a dedicated server? I'm curious now as to if it will just bog down because of onboard limitations, or if it will be fine because it's RAID 1+0.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

I've never heard of a Ransom Virus, and I can't imagine where I'd be on the internet to get one. In my opinion it isn't a strong enough deterrent to not put this array within my system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransomware

As for the rest of the post, a dedicated NAS (enclosure, server board, ECC RAM, CPU and raid/HBA card will indeed be in the region of $800-900 without drives. Seeing as you did mention it as an option, I assumed you were aware of that and that the extra cost wasn't an issue.

[Nemockulous]

As for the rest of the post, a dedicated NAS (enclosure, server board, ECC RAM, CPU and raid/HBA card will indeed be in the region of $800-900 without drives. Seeing as you did mention it as an option, I assumed you were aware of that and that the extra cost wasn't an issue.

 

I think it's the correct move for my needs, I think short-term however if I want to get it built the main storage array will have to wait a little while. I'll use some old WD Green 2TB drives I have to build a temporary array after I build the server. Now the problem becomes.... What components do I use to build the server given I intend to use this with FreeNAS and as a Plex Media Server.

[martward]

I've never heard of a Ransom Virus, and I can't imagine where I'd be on the internet to get one. In my opinion it isn't a strong enough deterrent to not put this array within my system. From what I'm gather from a few posters, using software RAID on my main system to control a RAID 5/6 is not a good option. I could get a RAID card, but still not a great option for within the system. A server as it appears will run ~$1kish alone, in addition to whatever drive I toss in it. I'm not super keen on that.

The alternative then is to run a software controlled RAID 1+0, sacrifice a little capacity for easy implementation, and house it in my current rig.

 

 

 

Have you by chance tried a 6 drive RAID 1+0 on a system that's a daily driver not a dedicated server? I'm curious now as to if it will just bog down because of onboard limitations, or if it will be fine because it's RAID 1+0.

Nope, sorry. I only pass on information I have found scrummaging the interwebz (and I am all out of info).

[Nemockulous]

Going to mark this as solved, going to transition to planning the NAS server