Raid or unraid

[Leebuck]

Hello everyone 

I have my own website and am going to set up my own server to host it off so I have complete control of it and will most probably rent out the rest of the space and I was wondering whats the best to build a hosting server Raid or unraid to do this with looking for some advise on this 

[tarfeef101]

Um.... 


It really depends what this server is doing. "Server" is a super generic term. What do you actually want to do?

(For context, I run a home server. it does nothing with RAID or unraid. neither are needed for a server to exist and perform its function)

[Windows7ge]

RAID & UnRAID are two different things that are not comparable.

 

UnRAID is a specific operating system with a specific list of features.

 

RAID is a broad term meaning the ability to turn multiple physical disks into a single logical volume. This can be done with hardware or any variety of software including ZFS, BTRFS, ReFS, and many more.

 

UnRAID uses RAID so you can't chose one or the other when you'd be using both if you pick UnRAID.

 

Basically your question doesn't make sense.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

4 hours ago, Windows7ge said:

...UnRAID uses RAID so you can't chose one or the other when you'd be using both if you pick UnRAID...

Actually, RAID is sometimes used in unRAID but only for caching (usually, if not always, RAID 0). The data itself is put directly on a drive intact, not striped over multiple drives like RAID does. The redundancy of RAID comes from the use of separate of one or two pairity drives. Check out this video for a description of how unRAID works.

[Windows7ge]

6 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Actually, RAID is sometimes used in unRAID but only for caching (usually, if not always, RAID 0). The data itself is put directly on a drive intact, not striped over multiple drives like RAID does. The redundancy of RAID comes from the use of separate of one or two pairity drives. Check out this video for a description of how unRAID works.

I'm familiar with the general process unRAID uses to store data. I've learned about it before. Even though the pool itself doesn't utilize traditional RAID I would argue it performs a RAID-like function that is similar enough to be called RAID.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

4 hours ago, Windows7ge said:

I'm familiar with the general process unRAID uses to store data. I've learned about it before. Even though the pool itself doesn't utilize traditional RAID I would argue it performs a RAID-like function that is similar enough to be called RAID.

Um, RAID uses striping which scatters fragments of files over stripes on several drives so, after one or more drive failures (depending on RAID level) there are enough fragements to reassemble into the original files while unRAID does NOT, instead putting files intact on a single drive and using one or more parity drives that uses an equation to determine bit values needed to replace one or two failed drives (depending on the number of parity drives).

 

If a RAID has drive failures that exceed the failure tolerance, all the data will be lost. If drive failures in unRAID exceed the failure tolerance of the unRAID, the remaining drives will still have accessible data on them, reducing the amount of data loss (and reducing the cost of professional data loss on the failed drive vs. the price of professional data recovery for a failed RAID).

 

The only term that can be accurately used for both RAID and unRAID is "redundancy". Otherwise, the two have nothing in common.

[Leebuck]

35 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Um, RAID uses striping which scatters fragments of files over stripes on several drives so, after one or more drive failures (depending on RAID level) there are enough fragements to reassemble into the original files while unRAID does NOT, instead putting files intact on a single drive and using one or more parity drives that uses an equation to determine bit values needed to replace one or two failed drives (depending on the number of parity drives).

 

If a RAID has drive failures that exceed the failure tolerance, all the data will be lost. If drive failures in unRAID exceed the failure tolerance of the unRAID, the remaining drives will still have accessible data on them, reducing the amount of data loss (and reducing the cost of professional data loss on the failed drive vs. the price of professional data recovery for a failed RAID).

 

The only term that can be accurately used for both RAID and unRAID is "redundancy". Otherwise, the two have nothing in common.

Hi so would you say unraid is better for a hosting server? And as a slow drive exspans so I can exspand as needed I have already set my server up with raid but is unraid better ? 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

36 minutes ago, Leebuck said:

Hi so would you say unraid is better for a hosting server? And as a slow drive exspans so I can exspand as needed I have already set my server up with raid but is unraid better ? 

I depends. If the server is receiving write activity 24/7, unRAID would probably be too slow. A nested RAID (10, 50, 60) would be much faster and have more redundancy. A non-nested RAID (1, 5, 6) would be slower but would have less drive overhead (fewr drives needed for the same volume).

 

If write activity is primarly during normal business hours with plenty of slack time, unRAID would be better. unRAID can compensate for its slow speed by using a cache to collect incoming data, then write it to the unRAID at a slower rate. If the unRAID is idling or not being called upon much overnight, it should have plenty of time to catchup with the cache unless the daytime activity exceeded the rate the unRAID can empty the cache.

 

RAID and unRAID are not the only forms of redundancy. There are several proprietary redundancy schemes available, often part of various factory servers, although I'm not up to speed on how they work.

[Leebuck]

10 hours ago, tarfeef101 said:

Um.... 


It really depends what this server is doing. "Server" is a super generic term. What do you actually want to do?

(For context, I run a home server. it does nothing with RAID or unraid. neither are needed for a server to exist and perform its function)

Don't mean to sound rude but if you had read my post properly I have already stated what the server is being used for ? To host my own site and also host out any spare space  I have left 

[Leebuck]

2 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I depends. If the server is receiving write activity 24/7, unRAID would probably be too slow. A nested RAID (10, 50, 60) would be much faster and have more redundancy. A non-nested RAID (1, 5, 6) would be slower but would have less drive overhead (fewr drives needed for the same volume).

 

If write activity is primarly during normal business hours with plenty of slack time, unRAID would be better. unRAID can compensate for its slow speed by using a cache to collect incoming data, then write it to the unRAID at a slower rate. If the unRAID is idling or not being called upon much overnight, it should have plenty of time to catchup with the cache unless the daytime activity exceeded the rate the unRAID can empty the cache.

 

RAID and unRAID are not the only forms of redundancy. There are several proprietary redundancy schemes available, often part of various factory servers, although I'm not up to speed on how they work.

If had multiple cache drives would 

This help ? 

[Jarsky]

Is this quite a large project? The majority of sites wouldn't require near the power or storage to justify a dedicated hardware machine. 

Also how will you offer them secure hosting? Using Webmin or ZPanel or something? And do you have the available IPv4 addresses to be able to offer them hosting?

 

Personally i'd just use a VPS/Cloud instance if you don't need huge compute or storage...especially as a lot of the services are scalable, you can increase/decrease the resources as needed, or you power down additionally nodes so they dont cost anything when you don't need so much compute. 

 

If you're really set on doing this, I wouldn't worry about even building a raid unless you're going to have heavy IO on a database, at which point id recommend going SSD over HDD as this would make a much larger difference than doing a striped RAID. If you are insistent on having a RAID, then I wouldn't go unRAID as it writes data contigously like a spanned volume, it isn't striped so there would be no speed benefit from it. Go with something like Linux MDADM. 

[Leebuck]

2 hours ago, Jarsky said:

Is this quite a large project? The majority of sites wouldn't require near the power or storage to justify a dedicated hardware machine. 

Also how will you offer them secure hosting? Using Webmin or ZPanel or something? And do you have the available IPv4 addresses to be able to offer them hosting?

 

Personally i'd just use a VPS/Cloud instance if you don't need huge compute or storage...especially as a lot of the services are scalable, you can increase/decrease the resources as needed, or you power down additionally nodes so they dont cost anything when you don't need so much compute. 

 

If you're really set on doing this, I wouldn't worry about even building a raid unless you're going to have heavy IO on a database, at which point id recommend going SSD over HDD as this would make a much larger difference than doing a striped RAID. If you are insistent on having a RAID, then I wouldn't go unRAID as it writes data contigously like a spanned volume, it isn't striped so there would be no speed benefit from it. Go with something like Linux MDADM. 

Yeah this is something that I have tuc 3years building i have tuc my time doing this to know it's done right I do have IPV4 address and I'm using ISPConfig Cpanel im also using Ubuntu server which is updated regularly my server is running Raid10 using a MegaRaid card as it is only a small server as it is mainly for my own site also all my drives are hybrid drives 

[Windows7ge]

8 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Um, RAID uses striping which scatters fragments of files over stripes on several drives so, after one or more drive failures (depending on RAID level) there are enough fragements to reassemble into the original files while unRAID does NOT, instead putting files intact on a single drive and using one or more parity drives that uses an equation to determine bit values needed to replace one or two failed drives (depending on the number of parity drives).

 

If a RAID has drive failures that exceed the failure tolerance, all the data will be lost. If drive failures in unRAID exceed the failure tolerance of the unRAID, the remaining drives will still have accessible data on them, reducing the amount of data loss (and reducing the cost of professional data loss on the failed drive vs. the price of professional data recovery for a failed RAID).

 

The only term that can be accurately used for both RAID and unRAID is "redundancy". Otherwise, the two have nothing in common.

They have more in common than that. I mentioned a form you missed to OP.

 

Both take multiple physical drives and display them to the host and clients as a single logical volume once the RAID(or if you must call it something else) is formed.

 

There are less common forms of legitimate RAID (depreciated but still exist) that perform a function very similar to unRAID's implementation. Their design is still close enough to pre-existing methods that I would still call it a form of RAID. They didn't reinvent the wheel. What they did has been done before.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, Leebuck said:

Yeah this is something that I have tuc 3years building i have tuc my time doing this to know it's done right I do have IPV4 address and I'm using ISPConfig Cpanel im also using Ubuntu server which is updated regularly my server is running Raid10 using a MegaRaid card as it is only a small server as it is mainly for my own site also all my drives are hybrid drives 

Are you going to be utilizing VM's at all?

 

I'd probably stick with Ubuntu, and then do RAID1 with 2 identically sized HDD's as the boost drive. You don't strictly need a hardware RAID card for RAID1, as many motherboards can run it too, but a RAID card would likely increase performance and stability. Grab a cheap Dell H200 or something for the job.

 

unRAID is an operating system. It's like Ubuntu or FreeNAS or Windows Server. unRAID has RAID-like functionality (as explained above, it's not actually RAID, but similar in many ways). I personally think unRAID is rather overrated, but many people quite like it.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

1 hour ago, Windows7ge said:

They have more in common than that. I mentioned a form you missed to OP.

 

Both take multiple physical drives and display them to the host and clients as a single logical volume once the RAID(or if you must call it something else) is formed.

 

There are less common forms of legitimate RAID (depreciated but still exist) that perform a function very similar to unRAID's implementation. Their design is still close enough to pre-existing methods that I would still call it a form of RAID. They didn't reinvent the wheel. What they did has been done before.

Going by that logic, I can refer to Fords, Chevys, and Dodges as Fords since they are all cars or refer to sportscars, sedans, pickups, and semis as sports cars since they have four wheels and a motor.

 

Again, you are conflating RAID with redundancy, even though other forms of redundancy don't always use a striping scheme lile RAID does. RAID is a form of redundancy but not all redundancy can be called RAID. The very name of unRAID should make it clear that unRAID is not RAID.

[Windows7ge]

1 minute ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Going by that logic, I can refer to Fords, Chevys, and Dodges as Fords since they are all cars or refer to sportscars, sedans, pickups, and semis as sports cars since they have four wheels and a motor.

 

Again, you are conflating RAID with redundancy, even though other forms of redundancy don't always use a striping scheme lile RAID does. RAID is a form of redundancy but not all redundancy can be called RAID. The very name of unRAID should make it clear that unRAID is not RAID.

I will openly admit that I am conflating RAID with how it it used by the OS to appear as a single logical volume using multiple physical disks. I am not however conflating it with redundancy. Redundancy is too broad of a term to just be associated with RAID.

 

Yes. Their name, they've made it quite clear they want to distinguish themselves but I still have to disagree. I agree it is not traditional RAID but it still performs a RAID-like function.

 

Quite frankly though I'm really not interested in continuing this debate because I can see neither of us are willing to budge on our opinions. This could go on forever and it's just disrespectful to OP who's here for help.

 

I do appreciate you keeping it civil though. That's more than I can say for other forum members who have disagreed in the past.

[dalekphalm]

33 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Going by that logic, I can refer to Fords, Chevys, and Dodges as Fords since they are all cars or refer to sportscars, sedans, pickups, and semis as sports cars since they have four wheels and a motor.

 

Again, you are conflating RAID with redundancy, even though other forms of redundancy don't always use a striping scheme lile RAID does. RAID is a form of redundancy but not all redundancy can be called RAID. The very name of unRAID should make it clear that unRAID is not RAID.

 

9 minutes ago, Windows7ge said:

I will openly admit that I am conflating RAID with how it it used by the OS to appear as a single logical volume using multiple physical disks. I am not however conflating it with redundancy. Redundancy is too broad of a term to just be associated with RAID.

 

Yes. Their name, they've made it quite clear they want to distinguish themselves but I still have to disagree. I agree it is not traditional RAID but it still performs a RAID-like function.

 

Quite frankly though I'm really not interested in continuing this debate because I can see neither of us are willing to budge on our opinions. This could go on forever and it's just disrespectful to OP who's here for help.

 

I do appreciate you keeping it civil though. That's more than I can say for other forum members who have disagreed in the past.

You two have both made your points. Both have merit. Let's not derail the OP's questions anymore than has already been done.

 

Let's wait and see if the OP has additional questions.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

1 hour ago, Windows7ge said:

I will openly admit that I am conflating RAID with how it it used by the OS to appear as a single logical volume using multiple physical disks. I am not however conflating it with redundancy. Redundancy is too broad of a term to just be associated with RAID.

 

Yes. Their name, they've made it quite clear they want to distinguish themselves but I still have to disagree. I agree it is not traditional RAID but it still performs a RAID-like function.

 

Quite frankly though I'm really not interested in continuing this debate because I can see neither of us are willing to budge on our opinions. This could go on forever and it's just disrespectful to OP who's here for help.

 

I do appreciate you keeping it civil though. That's more than I can say for other forum members who have disagreed in the past.

Sigh! I give up.

[tarfeef101]

9 hours ago, Leebuck said:

Don't mean to sound rude but if you had read my post properly I have already stated what the server is being used for ? To host my own site and also host out any spare space  I have left 

I do mean to sound a bit rude but "hosting a website (which either I missed or you added later, if the former my bad" is extremely broad and can imply WAY different needs depending on what this site is. 

A site that is a single html page with a visitor every couple minutes needs less than an rpi with an sd card to work. 

A site which hosts say, a live coding environment for an organisation's worth of users needs a hell of a lot more, and will be less compatible with things as a result.


As for "renting out the rest of the space", what does that mean? What do you consider "space"? physical space in a server rack? spare network bandwidth? Free drive space? Free CPU cycles? Some combination thereof?



So, depending on your answer to those questions, the answer I'd give you changes wildly.