NAS / Storage solution

[BLVCKRIPPER]

Hey guys,

 

lately im running a 6,5 tb jbod with 4 drives on windows (1 drive is broken and now im fucked up) and my own created nas with a linux and KVM and some VM´s with 1 TB storage.

Now I wanna change my full storage solution to another level.

I´ve got an old i5 with a z77 mainboard and wanna upgrade this server with a 10 gbit sfp+ nic, raid card and a shelf conected via sashd.

I wanna a raid 10 with 4 drives.

 

Here is a small list:

NIC's

Shelf pref Netapp,hp,dell SATA drives 

raid card (0,1,5,6,10,15,16)

hdd

 

My other Setup see below

Please give me some advise or other different products you prefer.

Thanks for your help and support

BLVCK

[manikyath]

advice:

raid 5, not raid 10.

 

or preferably, if its a dedicated device anyways, something like ZFS.

[Pbr38]

13 hours ago, manikyath said:

advice:

raid 5, not raid 10.

 

or preferably, if its a dedicated device anyways, something like ZFS.

any reason you prefer raid 5 over 10?

[SSD Sean]

Maybe for capacity. For performance I’d chose 10.  during a rebuild the chance of a rebuild failure is much higher with raid 5 vs 6 or 10 with larger drives. Raid 10 also rebuilds much faster than either. 

 

For raid card, I used an LSI 9261-8i (basically the same as 9260-8i) for a while with BBU and a 24 drive raid 6 (with an intel expander). Worked great and is cheap on eBay. There’s plenty of other alternatives. now I’m just running a JBOD setup and drive pool on a 9211-8i...been meaning to set up snapraid, but have been slacking for three years now lol. 

 

What about just just going for a Mellanox ConnectX-3 with infiniband for 40GbE or something like an intel x540 or x550 10GbE card on Ethernet? 

[manikyath]

6 hours ago, Pbr38 said:

any reason you prefer raid 5 over 10?

because a raid 10 only realisticly allows for any *single* drive to fail, the second one becomes a game of chance.

 

beyond that a raid5 loses less storage space to redundancy, and is (slightly) more intelligent about handling drive failures.

[NelizMastr]

54 minutes ago, manikyath said:

because a raid 10 only realisticly allows for any *single* drive to fail, the second one becomes a game of chance.

 

beyond that a raid5 loses less storage space to redundancy, and is (slightly) more intelligent about handling drive failures.

The main problem with RAID5 is the rebuild time, which means you better have a decent spread of batches across your drives or you're very vulnerable. If possible, go RAID6.

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, NelizMastr said:

The main problem with RAID5 is the rebuild time, which means you better have a decent spread of batches across your drives or you're very vulnerable. If possible, go RAID6.

well.. sure, that's why raid6 was invented.

 

but here i kinda return to my initial mention of ZFS, and if all your drives are kicking the bucket all at once.. raid10 wont be very good either

[NelizMastr]

3 minutes ago, manikyath said:

well.. sure, that's why raid6 was invented.

 

but here i kinda return to my initial mention of ZFS, and if all your drives are kicking the bucket all at once.. raid10 wont be very good either

That's fair. At work we exclusively deploy RAID10 where SSDs aren't viable because of cost, obviously the best way around the data loss probability is the use of hot spares. If you want both performance and reliability, it's the only real option. Enterprise SSDs aren't fun.

[SSD Sean]

I disagree, enterprise SSDs are very fun. *looks over at my 50TB server of 12Gb/s SAS SSDs and multi-terabyte PCIe NVMe SSDs*

[NelizMastr]

They’re not fun when you have to buy them. When we order from HP, even the entry level 400gig SSDs cost a whopping €400 before taxes, a 15K 600gig SAS disk costs less than half. When you deal with small business customers, they’re really not viable yet.

[SSD Sean]

Oh, I just get mine for free lol. I see your hardship now. eBay has good prices on last gen stuff, tho often little or no warranty.