Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Again, missing the point of what we're after in this thread. Home media server. Hello? The fact that a piece of software designed to generate parity on data doesn't pool is not a big deal.
The reason being is that for one there are other pooling solution on this scale. Home media server...
So VERY VERY right. This discussion was about best storage for a small home media server. The only argument others want to give is the 1000s of disks and such as to why their solution is better. Totally out of scope and missing the point of what was asked.
You are right in what you've said. Drivepool just pools the drives together under a single letter. No redundancy there. You would need something else to provide parity such as snapraid.
You've also totally missed the point of this thread. Home media server. Not Enterprise storage with Petabyte installations with 100s of disks. And there's more than one way to pool disks. So that fact than flexraid/snapraid/unraid/etc don't pool is not an issue. And they don't update files...
SnapRAID is tried and tested. It's been out several years, not as long as zfs true. But it has advanced much in those years and is quite stable. I see nothing "clumsy" about it. It's an easy setup. Which drive is parity? Which drives are data? Once those are defined it provides redundancy...
That's my whole question too. No one yet has really given any good reasons/examples as to why zfs is the right choice. Other than it just is. It has some nice features most of which are also available in some way with other non-standard raids or software.
Every example with zfs involves so...
Your example there is just a nonstandard raid with removal and replacement of the disks. Something that snapraid, flexraid and other nonstandard raids can all easily do. Nothing zfs specific. It could be ntfs or ext4 or any other filesystem in that example and they'd all work that same way...
I'm not saying don't keep backups. I understand that, but for simply making a server with the ability to easily add drives and keep that data protected in some way. All the arguments presented so far for zfs seem like both sides are giving good reasons against zfs. I've heard nothing that...
For simple flexibility and scalability I would say snapraid beats zfs and a standard raid5 easily. What everyone is talking about is setting up a system and later wanting the ability to easily add drives and increase storage while maintaining redundancy.
How has any zfs example that's been...
Flexraid and Snapraid both protect against data corruption. They can detect it through hashes on the data and repair it through parity. They only spin one disk at a time, can use already full disks, can use disks of different sizes provided the parity disk is as large of capacity as your...