WHS2011 Question on HD Expanding

[tooslick2k]

I am currently putting together a buy list for a Home Server. I am new to networking but have a great knowledge of computers. Money really isn't an issue when it comes to storage. What I'd like to know is if I start out with say 20TB on 10 Drives with one as a Hot Spare.

1) If i put these all together as a Raid 6 raid set then all as one volume so it shows as one network drive(K: ); could I add another drive or two later to increase the storage space under that same volume set??

2)Could I add another 10 and create a new volume set for a second network drive(L: ) on the same server or do i need to build a separate server for that? How could I create multiple network drives(L: ), (M: ), (N: ) on the same server? Do these have to have their own independent raid set from the one above?

Thanks for any help you could provide.

[Whaler_99]

I can only assume you are using hardware raid?? Raid 6 with that many drives, better be. :) Once you create the "array" which is the hardware component of grouping your disks together, you can then create logical drives on the array. Again, depending on RAID card, in the RAID manager or Windows. You can create one large logical drive that uses the entire array. Or have one logical drive of 5TB, one of 3TB and one of 10TB for instance. Then in Windows these would be formated as three, simple drives, with three drive letters. :)

Now, adding drives after the fact, to an existing array, is called array expansion or extension, depending on the vendor. You need to make sure your card supports it. To have RAID5 or 6 you also typically have to have a cache module on your array card, otherwise only RAID0, 1, 10 are typically supported. The RAID controller and cabling will be the most expensive part of all this, not to mention the case to hold it all. :)

Most cards will let you add additional drives (up to the max supported drives) and create additiona arrays, with different RAID levels. Rinse and repeat as above in regards to making logical drives.

One thing, if using hardware raid, NEVER use dynamic disks in Windows.

Have you any RAID controllers in mind?

[tooslick2k]

Wow thanks for the speedy reply!

I have an Areca ARC-1882ix-24-4G card coming in soon. So yes it will be a hardware raid. The case is already in my possession, an NORCO RPC-4224. I did just read that the Areca card features Online capacity expansion and RAID level migration simultaneously, Online volume set growth, and Multiple RAID selection. So I assume that this means it will do what I'm asking?

I am also being advised to buy only Seagate Barracuda drives, however I prefer and love my WD Blacks. Do you have any input?

[looney]

yes OCE is what your looking for.

but do you really need hardware raid? its by far the most expensive option, and you do not need it if your going tot use the system for stuff like audio video storage.

I suggest you have look at this topic to look at a few more options: http://linustechtips.com/main/forum/...show-off-topic

also have a few questions:

-will it be a dedicated storage system?

-what type of files will be stored?

-what is your budget?

personnel i would go for either a FlexRAID or a nice linux distro solution, use 3 cheap 8 port card with simple pass through capability's (IBM M1015)

this will already save around 700euro, (your card is 1000euro, 3x IBM is 300). also as far as hard drives go, black is faster but a lot more expensive, and depending on what your going to use the system for, you might not even notice the performance difference.

hardware raid is cool, just to expensive IMO, the money you save on blacks and hardware raid will probably give you the ability to buy 3tb hdd's instead of 2'tb drives for the same budget.

PS: i think this post should be in the storage sub forum.

[Whaler_99]

I say depends - hardware RAID is worth it - if you really don't want to lose the data (well, as much as RAID can conver) and have great performance. As for disks, just don't buy like low power drives, blues, green's, etc. Thier power down can cause the controller to think they have dropped out of the array and send it into a tizzy. :(

[looney]

that's why i said personally :),

For audio video streaming only you don't need 500+mb/s read speeds.

Also i personally really like that in the case of a full failure (3 drives die in raid 5 or something) you will still have a large portion of the data (all the data that's on the remaining drives)

This is never the case with hardware raid because files are split up among drives.

And yes don't go for green or blue drives, get black, RE4, Hitachi or Seagate.

another reason i liked Flexraid is the fact that its windows based, so if you need a windows server for some random app your used to you can still use that (without ESXI or anything like that)

[azeotrope]

i personally really like that in the case of a full failure (3 drives die in raid 5 or something) you will still have a large portion of the data (all the data that's on the remaining drives

True however what are the odds of a 3 drive failure within the time it takes to resync (a day or so)?

For audio video streaming only you don't need 500+mb/s read speeds.

Out of curiosity, what kind of sequential read/write performance do you get? does flexraid affect the performance much?

Anyway, as already mentioned if you want to run windows and be able to add drives to the current raid set across more than one controller, flexraid would be the way to go.

[looney]

True however what are the odds of a 3 drive failure within the time it takes to resync (a day or so)?

2 would already be enough :p, the point im trying to make it that no matter what happens you will still have a large portion of the data.

like if you raid card crashes or something, all the data is still stored in NTFS on the drives, not all split up across the drives like you would have with other solutions.

Out of curiosity' date=' what kind of sequential read/write performance do you get? does flexraid affect the performance much?[/quote']

Like i said flexraid does not split the files up so you will get the same speed as you would with a single disk. but if you have 10 people watching different stuff of the server there is a very big change each file is on a diff hdd, so they will have the full hdd speed to their disposal.

This means that in a real life scenario you can achieve much higher read / writes then a single disk as long as its multiple files on multiple disks.

[azeotrope]

2 would already be enough

Yes, although very unlikely within the resync time span. It depends on the hard drives of course. I do run raid6 myself to decrease this chance.

the point im trying to make it that no matter what happens you will still have a large portion of the data.

like if you raid card crashes or something

The way I see it, flexraid vs conventional raid is a tradeoff, depending on whether you are willing to lose any data at all vs the very small chance of losing all your data. raid is of course not a backup, however I'm sure as hell not going to back up 10TB of media. With flexraid I suppose you have to consider what happens if you lose one drive and the parity is not synced and how much of a loss this will be for you personally.

[looney]

yes, all correct, that why i would only recommend flexraid for media storage.

snapshot is fine for media as you might only a a file every couple of days. not active writes 24/7.

so in your scenario (parity not synced and lose dirive) you will with 10 data drives still have 9:10 of the data. and you can rebuild the broken drive up to the last parity sync job.

its also power efficient, it only spins up the needed drives.

i do back up my server to the cloud btw, but that's only a option when you have good upload speeds.

[tooslick2k]

but do you really need hardware raid? its by far the most expensive option, and you do not need it if your going tot use the system for stuff like audio video storage.

I believe the reliability in RAID 6 far out weighs not having a card. I also prefer the speed of 6gb/p.

also have a few questions:

-will it be a dedicated storage system?

-what type of files will be stored?

-what is your budget?

1- I don't believe so, I plan on having 3 volumes, although I am contemplating making 6 independent servers. However I don't know how efficient it would be or really how it would work.

2- One volume(or server) will be RAID6, with 10TB (5x 2TB), for my iTunes account and Digital Copies of movies. Video streaming is main purpose.

One volume(or server) will be RAID6, with 4TB (4x1TB), backup for networked computers.

One Server(or volume) will be RAID6, with 4TB (4x1TB), for storage and direct read/write of high resolution photos for my photography company.

3- about 5 grand US (about 3750 Euro)

also as far as hard drives go, black is faster but a lot more expensive, and depending on what your going to use the system for, you might not even notice the performance difference.

I was going to ask would a WD Red be better than a WD Black?

PS: i think this post should be in the storage sub forum.

How can I move it?

Thank you guys very much! You've been very helpful!

[azeotrope]

I believe the reliability in RAID 6 far out weighs not having a card. I also prefer the speed of 6gb/p.

you can do raid6 without a card, but not very well on windows.

I was going to ask would a WD Red be better than a WD Black?

depends on your network. normal gigabit lan will be the bottleneck with any 7200 rpm drive and any of the arrays you've listed. Seagates or WD reds would be fine although the reds are slightly better for this application.

Setting up hardware raid6 for the applications you've mentioned seems like overkill. Just be aware that there are cheaper ways of doing this.

[Whaler_99]

Remember, when doing RAID you don't get the full usage and doing RAID6 even more so. So, 5x2TB drives in RAID6 would leave you with a theoretical 6TB usable as two drives are used for parity. After formats and such, maybe 5.5-5.7TB usage. Same thing with your other setup - 4x1TB - losing two drives to parity, would leave you with maybe 1.6TB usable. I would say use scalability and such on a single system. If you are buying a higher end RAID card, use 2TB drives at a minimum. At some times only $15 more the 1TB, gives you a lot more space. In a single box, you could do:

RAID5 array - 10TB - 6 drives

RAID5 array - 4TB - 3 drives

RAID5 array - 4TB - 3 drives

And then have a global hot spare. Same number of disks, lot more usable space. And performance of RAID5 is better then RAID6 and you have the protection of the global hot spare in case of a failure.

I have just started using the Red drives as they are optimized for home/small business NAS solutions, 7/24 operations...

[looney]

but do you really need hardware raid? its by far the most expensive option, and you do not need it if your going tot use the system for stuff like audio video storage.

I believe the reliability in RAID 6 far out weighs not having a card. I also prefer the speed of 6gb/p.

also have a few questions:

-will it be a dedicated storage system?

-what type of files will be stored?

-what is your budget?

1- I don't believe so, I plan on having 3 volumes, although I am contemplating making 6 independent servers. However I don't know how efficient it would be or really how it would work.

2- One volume(or server) will be RAID6, with 10TB (5x 2TB), for my iTunes account and Digital Copies of movies. Video streaming is main purpose.

One volume(or server) will be RAID6, with 4TB (4x1TB), backup for networked computers.

One Server(or volume) will be RAID6, with 4TB (4x1TB), for storage and direct read/write of high resolution photos for my photography company.

3- about 5 grand US (about 3750 Euro)

also as far as hard drives go, black is faster but a lot more expensive, and depending on what your going to use the system for, you might not even notice the performance difference.

I was going to ask would a WD Red be better than a WD Black?

PS: i think this post should be in the storage sub forum.

How can I move it?

Thank you guys very much! You've been very helpful!

with dedicated system in meant if it was going to be just a storage server, so its not doubling as a workstation.

[tooslick2k]

Remember' date=' when doing RAID you don't get the full usage and doing RAID6 even more so. So, 5x2TB drives in RAID6 would leave you with a theoretical 6TB usable as two drives are used for parity. After formats and such, maybe 5.5-5.7TB usage. Same thing with your other setup - 4x1TB - losing two drives to parity, would leave you with maybe 1.6TB usable. I would say use scalability and such on a single system. If you are buying a higher end RAID card, use 2TB drives at a minimum. At some times only $15 more the 1TB, gives you a lot more space. In a single box, you could do: RAID5 array - 10TB - 6 drives RAID5 array - 4TB - 3 drives RAID5 array - 4TB - 3 drives And then have a global hot spare. Same number of disks, lot more usable space. And performance of RAID5 is better then RAID6 and you have the protection of the global hot spare in case of a failure. I have just started using the Red drives as they are optimized for home/small business NAS solutions, 7/24 operations... [/quote']

Thank You. I heard that RAID6 is more reliable and better fix if a drive goes down? I Love the idea of extra storage though. I think I will order in Reds, I just needed to hear somebody else say its as good as advertised.

[tooslick2k]

Thanks again for your reply.

I believe the reliability in RAID 6 far out weighs not having a card. I also prefer the speed of 6gb/p.

you can do raid6 without a card, but not very well on windows.

I will be running windows home server 2011.

I was going to ask would a WD Red be better than a WD Black?

depends on your network. normal gigabit lan will be the bottleneck with any 7200 rpm drive and any of the arrays you've listed. Seagates or WD reds would be fine although the reds are slightly better for this application. Setting up hardware raid6 for the applications you've mentioned seems like overkill. Just be aware that there are cheaper ways of doing this.

I really don't want to spend the extra money on server drives @ 1200rpm. I really prefer hardware over software, I even use a hardware firewall right after the modem because I don't trust the router and software to do what is necessary. What is your suggestion to the bottlenecking?

[tooslick2k]

but do you really need hardware raid? its by far the most expensive option, and you do not need it if your going tot use the system for stuff like audio video storage.

I believe the reliability in RAID 6 far out weighs not having a card. I also prefer the speed of 6gb/p.

also have a few questions:

-will it be a dedicated storage system?

-what type of files will be stored?

-what is your budget?

1- I don't believe so, I plan on having 3 volumes, although I am contemplating making 6 independent servers. However I don't know how efficient it would be or really how it would work.

2- One volume(or server) will be RAID6, with 10TB (5x 2TB), for my iTunes account and Digital Copies of movies. Video streaming is main purpose.

One volume(or server) will be RAID6, with 4TB (4x1TB), backup for networked computers.

One Server(or volume) will be RAID6, with 4TB (4x1TB), for storage and direct read/write of high resolution photos for my photography company.

3- about 5 grand US (about 3750 Euro)

also as far as hard drives go, black is faster but a lot more expensive, and depending on what your going to use the system for, you might not even notice the performance difference.

I was going to ask would a WD Red be better than a WD Black?

PS: i think this post should be in the storage sub forum.

How can I move it?

Thank you guys very much! You've been very helpful!

Oh, Yes it will be dedicated. I have a powerfull desktop, which I threw way too much into for its output. However that is another reason why I want a server volume that I can work on photos and videos through the network and not stored on a networked pc. I will be editing these files remotely as well over broadband connections.

[azeotrope]

I will be running windows home server 2011.

If you're set on using windows server and raid6, then hardware raid is really your only option. I was just mentioning it since ther are cheaper ways of doing raid6 ie mdraid on linux or raidz2 on BSD.

I really don't want to spend the extra money on server drives @ 1200rpm

I assume you mean 7200 rpm? AFAIK all the drive suggestion mentioned in this thread are 7200rpm drives, I wasn't hinting at server drives at all. That would be unecessary unless you're pushing some serious IO.

What is your suggestion to the bottlenecking?

It depends on what you're network setup is. I also suggest you look at some benchmarks of the raid cards you have and consider how much throughput you expect from these setups. It's always good to know what what to expect so there aren't any surprises. Having bottlenecks is not necessarily a bad thing, it simply depends on what kind of performance you want to achieve as to whether you need to debottleneck or not.

[looney]

I assume you mean 7200 rpm?

i think he meant enterprise sas drives (10k, 15k,) and no you don't need those :p

so from what ive read you do not want software raid in any way, no windows server with flexraid, nu linux distro with raid, all hardware based. correct?

if so there are 2 sorts of hardware raid solutions,

-the expensive kind with a on-card cpu do calculate parity (easy on your main cpu and ram)

-the cheaper kind without a on-card cpu, you own cpu will do the parity calc. (will use up some cpu and some ram)