need raid 5 controller, 8 port

[runLoganrun]

it seems like i have to buy something like Areca ARC-1220 to have good performance, and better reliability than something like one of the 8 port Rocket Raids, this is unfortunate as they are considerably more expensive. I want to build something reliable though that will last a long time hopefully with very few problems. Any other suggestions welcomed.

the purpose of this is to build a storage device/ server to sit on my small network. thinking of something like asus p5ql/775/p43, intel celeron wolfdale 2.5G, and 2G of ram.

my first question is that in the specs for the controller i mentioned, along with many others, they specify server 2003, but not 2008, will it work with this OS? and, this one mentions that it works with vista, does that mean that most of them don't?

I haven't decided what would be best OS to put on it, not sure if i need to have server OS, i figured i could just setup vista or win7(if supported) and setup shares on that, but want to know if server os would be better. it's just a couple computers on it now, it might expand to 1 or 2 more, idk, but essentially just needs to be a large storage capacity nas type deal.

also, if using a hardware type controller like this one, what is it dependant on exactly, like for example if something happens to the card, am i screwed, or if i replace with identical card will the array still be intact? The same for mobo, and could it be switched to a different motherboard by just moving the array with the card? the os would be on individual drive.

thanks for any help,
rlr

 

[tgrimley]

can't offer any good advice but you should mention a budget

 

[Blue Fox]

Card recommendations largely do depend on your budget, but I can tell you that should your hardware fail (say motherboard for example), you can move the RAID card and drives to a new system and it will work fine. If the RAID card goes out, you don't have to get an identical model either usually (for example, if you have an Areca card, you can use any other Areca card).

 

[Adidas4275]

well, how about the big GIANT ELEPHANT in the ROOM...

no raid card, get a supermicro dummy 8 port PCI-X or PCIe card and run WHS, which is based off 2003.

/thread

 

[Blue Fox]

WHS is unfortunately not the end all be all of home storage.

 

[madcoder]

WHS is unfortunately not the end all be all of home storage.

AGREE!

 

[runLoganrun]

Card recommendations largely do depend on your budget, but I can tell you that should your hardware fail (say motherboard for example), you can move the RAID card and drives to a new system and it will work fine. If the RAID card goes out, you don't have to get an identical model either usually (for example, if you have an Areca card, you can use any other Areca card).

as far as my budget, it's pretty low, i'd just as soon not have to buy an expensive card, buying many hard drives up front will be hard enough.

so does that work for either hardware or software cards, as far as if something fails? for some reason i was under the impression that hardware raid had an advantage as far as that goes, maybe that had to do with onboard raid.

what about array expansion, is that better I assume with a hardware raid card? people seem to balk about expansion in general, is that risky for some reason? I'd prefer to actually start with less discs, like 5, and then bump it up later to 8, or even inital building of the array up to 5 drives, i have several identical 1TB drives already, it would be nice to only have to buy 3 new drives, then feed them my drives one at a time, and expand accordingly to 6. would like to know if i can do this. Like it's been suggested to me to back up my data and so forth before trying to expand an array, but that would be my largest capacity for storage, it's not like i have another 5TB sitting around doing nothing.

thanks,
rlr

 

[runLoganrun]

AGREE!

Yes, unfortunately WHS has very little fault protection, doesn't support raid 5, not really what i want.

What about running 2008 on the areca (or other) card, or do i just use 2003, or what's best OS to use for my purposes?

Thanks!
rlr

 

[nitrobass24]

You can get Dell Perc5/6 8port cards for a decent price usually ~100, and they are just rebadged LSI cards.

Its a great card for the price.

 

[axan]

for os you can go with what you're familiar with, srv 2008 or even 2003 do decent job, personally I prefer *nix distro, can't beat the flexibility, reliability and price

 

[InvisiBill]

Like it's been suggested to me to back up my data and so forth before trying to expand an array, but that would be my largest capacity for storage, it's not like i have another 5TB sitting around doing nothing.

Let me be the first to say it in this thread: RAID is not backup.

With a RAID5 array, you have a single parity disk protecting the others. If one drive dies, it can be rebuilt. If a second drive dies before the rebuild finishes, all the data is lost. RAID6 recognizes this is becoming more of an issue with bigger drives (longer rebuild times) and adds another parity disk, so you can handle two simultaneous drive failures, but a third failure will kill a RAID6 as well.

RAID offers some protection from simple disk failure, but that's about it. If you accidentally delete a file, it doesn't help. If someone spills Mt. Dew in the computer or the PSU dies and sends out a drive-killing surge, it doesn't help. If your house burns down, it doesn't help.

Yes, unfortunately WHS has very little fault protection, doesn't support raid 5, not really what i want.

WHS does do file duplication, so you can have a second copy of the file. It's actually better protection than RAID5 in that it still takes two drive failures before data is lost, but each disk is an independently readable copy. If one drive dies, you can pull the remaining one out and take precautions to make sure nothing happens to that one. With RAID5, you need the rest of the array to access your data, and sometimes the added work of rebuilding the array will actually cause the next drive to fail. The tradeoff is that duplication uses more space.

 

[Adidas4275]

Yes, unfortunately WHS has very little fault protection, doesn't support raid 5, not really what i want.

What about running 2008 on the areca (or other) card, or do i just use 2003, or what's best OS to use for my purposes?

Thanks!
rlr

well i know MS doesnt support WHS with raid 5 but i run WHS with RAID 5 on my rig w/o issues

and when was the lst time you called MS for support help??



you are right it is not the end all be all of home storage but for what the OP is looking for in flexability of storage size and such it does fit the bill..

I use 2 Rocketraid highpoint lowerend software RAID cards with Raid 5 on both running with WHS and it works great.... I dont add them to the storage pool, but you can...

 

[Wibla]

Have a look on ebay, 3ware 9500S cards are dirt cheap now... they can be used as pure SATA controllers aswell.

 

[danman]

WHS is unfortunately not the end all be all of home storage.

And its a colossal waste of space when you have a large library.

 

[Blue Fox]

And its a colossal waste of space when you have a large library.

Not exactly. A high end RAID card costs about the same as doubling your number of drives (well, when you have a moderate amount), so it's all relative. I personally went with the RAID card approach, but that's just me.

 

[geiger]

Perc 5i w/BBU off ebay is the most cost effective option if you need the RAID 5 safety blanket.

When trying to mix consumer drives with enterprise controllers you may also be setting yourself up for disappointment. The Storage/cost ratio of consumer drives is to the point where WHS duplication is more cost effective than the man-hour loss incurred due to a failed raid 5 rebuild. If your raid 5 shits the bed during a rebuild on the FOTM non raid designed drives how many hours will it take you to rebuild your storage collection?

FWIW here is my history with home media storage:
-Started off with dreams of a raid 5 backed OF setup using iSCSI to overcome the native drive recording requirement of VMC.
-Set up a ESXi server to run a non-domain W2K8 server VM to host a MyMovies library.
-Broke down and converted my dual raid 5 4x1TB raid arrays to a WHS server. With PP3 I now get automated offloading of recorded content. I also have my MyMovies library that took about a month of long nights ripping and converting to DVRMS stored on a duplicated WHS share.

 

[runLoganrun]

Let me be the first to say it in this thread: RAID is not backup.

With a RAID5 array, you have a single parity disk protecting the others. If one drive dies, it can be rebuilt. If a second drive dies before the rebuild finishes, all the data is lost. RAID6 recognizes this is becoming more of an issue with bigger drives (longer rebuild times) and adds another parity disk, so you can handle two simultaneous drive failures, but a third failure will kill a RAID6 as well.

RAID offers some protection from simple disk failure, but that's about it. If you accidentally delete a file, it doesn't help. If someone spills Mt. Dew in the computer or the PSU dies and sends out a drive-killing surge, it doesn't help. If your house burns down, it doesn't help.




WHS does do file duplication, so you can have a second copy of the file. It's actually better protection than RAID5 in that it still takes two drive failures before data is lost, but each disk is an independently readable copy. If one drive dies, you can pull the remaining one out and take precautions to make sure nothing happens to that one. With RAID5, you need the rest of the array to access your data, and sometimes the added work of rebuilding the array will actually cause the next drive to fail. The tradeoff is that duplication uses more space.

thanks- i was counting on the unlikelihood of a 2nd failure, especially with a good card that has faster rebuild time, but it is possible and i wouldn't want to lose all that data. i have about 3.3TB of media storage now, so want to plan for at least 5 or 6TB for room to move, with duplication that's a lot of drives. i'm using 1TB drives.

so WHS allows an equal amount of duplication and I can back up everything? for some reason i thought the duplication was limited.

how does it store the data, doesn't it look at it as one drive, like jbod, like is it distributed, or can you control which drives are used for what?

one more- is it all OS controlled then, can you move array to other mobo if need be?

thanks a lot,
rlr

 

[keenan]

Not exactly. A high end RAID card costs about the same as doubling your number of drives (well, when you have a moderate amount), so it's all relative. I personally went with the RAID card approach, but that's just me.

Or you could just use software RAID and get the best of both worlds... if cost is a major consideration, it's hands down the best option.

The PERC5i is darn good value though, as long as they continue to be readily available.

 

[drizzt81]

as far as my budget, it's pretty low, i'd just as soon not have to buy an expensive card, buying many hard drives up front will be hard enough.

If your budget is pretty low and all you need is "a large storage capacity nas type deal" why are you planning on purchasing

1. a server OS[1]
2. an expensive RAID card

If I were on a budget, I would select a free OS (e.g., openfiler) and go the software RAID route, which also works independently of your motherboard. Saving USD220 on the OS and ~USD300 on the RAID controller should enable you to purchase a good backup solution, if you do not have one already.


[1] Last I checked, Win2k3 or Win2k8 server licenses for for at least EUR150/USD220 on eBay

 

[runLoganrun]

Or you could just use software RAID and get the best of both worlds... if cost is a major consideration, it's hands down the best option.

The PERC5i is darn good value though, as long as they continue to be readily available.

so is that card strictly "hardware" raid?
one prob with that is that i kinda need a pci card, i have one open pci-e and i want it available for crossfire, also only 2 pci slots available so would like 8 port card so i still have a slot available.

what is the main difference with software raid cards, is it reliability, or speed, or both?
with software raid if you lose your OS for some reason, or reformat does that affect the array?

thanks,
rlr

 

[runLoganrun]

If your budget is pretty low and all you need is "a large storage capacity nas type deal" why are you planning on purchasing

1. a server OS[1]
2. an expensive RAID card

If I were on a budget, I would select a free OS (e.g., openfiler) and go the software RAID route, which also works independently of your motherboard. Saving USD220 on the OS and ~USD300 on the RAID controller should enable you to purchase a good backup solution, if you do not have one already.


[1] Last I checked, Win2k3 or Win2k8 server licenses for for at least EUR150/USD220 on eBay

I could get access to a license for OS so that wasn't a consideration, and for the card, my impression was that there was a significant difference in reliability, and speed with buying a nice card. but really what i want it for is data protection, so think I may go a different route with some kind of duplication or mirroring, i'd like to be able to view multiple drives as one share though. my earlier post asks if WHS will accomplish this, I believe it does look at it as one drive essentially, which i assume you could share out as you wish, but i didn't think that I could "duplicate" all my data with it. and doesn't whs have to be on same drives as data, or can it be on a separate drive for easier upgrading/reformatting without affecting array?

thanks,
rlr

 

[FrostBite]

WHS could be a good solution for you, and a better solution in the future because of hard drive prices and sizes. I remember paying $0.20/gig and it was an amazing deal. Now, what is the norm, $0.0999/gig? Just buy more hard drives, add them to the pool.

 

[keenan]

and for the card, my impression was that there was a significant difference in reliability

Not really. There is the potential for minor data loss (ie. writes from the past couple minutes tops) if there's a power outage or system crash due to the lack of battery backup (+$ for your card to add this), but a decent UPS, dedicated box and journaled filesystem can mitigate this a great deal, to the point where I wouldn't consider it a huge advantage one way or the other in a home setup, though it does mean that after an unplanned shutdown you'll need to do a rebuild, which leaves you vulnerable to failure. You also get the major advantage of not caring at all what your hardware looks like. It doesn't matter what architecture, hard disk controller or anything else you're using, your data will be accessible in any system capable running similar software (ie. Linux or FreeBSD), even via a LiveCD - which includes pretty much any PC available, and even a lot of dedicated NAS boxes.

Performance on the whole for your type of use is similar, and softraid can be faster throughput-wise in a lot of cases (though can't generally compete on iops or CPU utilization).

That said, running it successfully does require slightly more technical knowledge and the ability to deduce things on your own (ie. no blinky lights or references to the physical layout when you need to tell which drive to replace, IIRC growing is still done manually in OpenFiler, etc). I don't think it's anything that someone on [H] couldn't handle, but it is a consideration for some. This varies widely between hardware cards as well.

one prob with that is that i kinda need a pci card, i have one open pci-e and i want it available for crossfire, also only 2 pci slots available so would like 8 port card so i still have a slot available.

This is another good argument for a dedicated box. Putting 8 disks on a single PCI slot at 133MB/s tops (half-duplex) is going to really cripple performance. Most PCI-X cards should work fine though, and you might be able to get some bargain-basement stuff on eBay since nobody is using this interface anymore.

 

[tgrimley]

This is another good argument for a dedicated box. Putting 8 disks on a single PCI slot at 133MB/s tops (half-duplex) is going to really cripple performance. Most PCI-X cards should work fine though, and you might be able to get some bargain-basement stuff on eBay since nobody is using this interface anymore.

I could easily saturate a PCI bus with 3 disks running software raid.. I second the PCIe / gigabit / second box rec no matter what route you choose (soft/hard ware)

 

[runLoganrun]

though it does mean that after an unplanned shutdown you'll need to do a rebuild, which leaves you vulnerable to failure.

doesn't that take a long time, during which one drive failure would bring it all down?

It doesn't matter what architecture, hard disk controller or anything else you're using, your data will be accessible in any system capable running similar software

I thought that the software was particular to each card. but you're saying that i can swap out hardware/software, and still access same array?

This is another good argument for a dedicated box. Putting 8 disks on a single PCI slot at 133MB/s tops (half-duplex) is going to really cripple performance.

yeah, sorry, clarification, this would be for a dedicated box, i have a spare box that can hold 9 drives, with an adapter, so no prob with pci-e card, but needs mobo, cpu, and memory.

**i'm thinking WHS might be better as last poster stated, just not sure if there's a limit on duplication, if someone could clarify that for me?

**or i suppose raid 1, but if i do that i can't duplicate the drives i have, right? I'd have to feed them to new array, so would need the total amount of drives, new, as opposed to just an equal amount to what i have now? Would WHS accomplish that?

thanks a lot for info,
rlr

 

[keenan]

doesn't that take a long time, during which one drive failure would bring it all down?

It takes longer the more disks you have and the larger they are. My 4 disk array takes about 2 hours to resync. If you have a good UPS though and don't fool around in kernel space, you should never need to do that. RAID-6 also eliminates this concern, and is recommended if you're using 7 disks or more. BBU does eliminate this issue, as long as you can trust the BBU to work and know you can get power back to the system before the battery runs out.

I thought that the software was particular to each card. but you're saying that i can swap out hardware/software, and still access same array?

In software RAID, all the RAID-ing happens in the operating system. As long as you're using the same OS and have block access to the same disks (even if the controller type or other hardware changes), you'll be able to access your data. As a side point, it's generally safe to just clone or move your boot disk to another machine with *nix OS's, while Windows really should be reinstalled. You can migrate your whole system very quickly to new hardware should anything fail, it's basically just a matter of unplugging the disks and moving them to a new system, and everything will just work (almost).

**i'm thinking WHS might be better as last poster stated, just not sure if there's a limit on duplication, if someone could clarify that for me?

WHS is very easy to use and set up, but the cost of duplication gets to be quite large with larger arrays. There aren't any limitations on duplication as far as I know (if I'm understanding your question, anyway). It's possible for the array to get unbalanced where some disks have more data on them than others, which might mean the duplication takes a while to process as the system shuffles things around to make it fit, but this happens in the background continuously, so in most cases you're not going to run into that if you keep a bit of free space around. I suppose it would be possible to have one huge disk say 2TB and the combination of other drives not sufficient to support full duplication, but that's an obvious one.

**or i suppose raid 1, but if i do that i can't duplicate the drives i have, right? I'd have to feed them to new array, so would need the total amount of drives, new, as opposed to just an equal amount to what i have now? Would WHS accomplish that?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Do you mean you have existing disks with data on them that you'd like to keep? If that's what you mean, this works fine with Linux softraid as long as you do it in a particular manner so that the system knows which drive has data and which doesn't (basically you create the array with 1 good and 1 failed disk and then add the blank one and let it rebuild), as long as the filesystem would be supported. I imagine similar gymnastics are possible on other RAID systems, but not sure, I'm fairly certain you can't do this with Windows softraid or Intel 'Matrix' RAID.

WHS might be suitable if you're willing to pay the price of duplication and plan on adding storage slowly. It does have the useful advantage of being able to aggregate any size of disks into one large pool, so you can always buy what's the best $/GB or the largest available. The savings from doing this could offset the cost of duplication if your growth rate is slow.

 

[magnetik]

fwiw, I have a similar setup. So far it's been super reliable. I've flipped sata cables around and it just does a short rebuild to fix it. I've even borked a flash and was able to recover and the array was fine.

Adaptec OEM 5805 w/ bbu (Sun version w/ 256mb instead of 512mb)
8 x 1TB WD Black
Raid 5 256k stripe
Windows 7 Ultimate x64

here is the bench I took after adding 3 drives.. not bad for $279 off ebay for the controller

 

[runLoganrun]

fwiw, I have a similar setup. So far it's been super reliable. I've flipped sata cables around and it just does a short rebuild to fix it. I've even borked a flash and was able to recover and the array was fine.

Adaptec OEM 5805 w/ bbu (Sun version w/ 256mb instead of 512mb)
8 x 1TB WD Black
Raid 5 256k stripe
Windows 7 Ultimate x64

thanks- is that in a separate case, or your main rig?
so that's a hardware controlled card then, i assume for the price, i googled it and it was 5something, haven't checked ebay yet though (even though that usually shows up in google), there are other cards too, but they're right up there also.

I was thinking that i could get an 4890x2 when they come out, and then make use of that other pci-e slot, it would be less for right now than rebuilding whole other box to have array on main machine, even though i'd rather them separate, then i could migrate it over to other one later.

So you didn't have any compatibility issues with your card and windows 7 x64?

thanks for input,
rlr

 

[runLoganrun]

RAID-6 also eliminates this concern, and is recommended if you're using 7 disks or more.

yes, was looking at raid6 also, so with that then is there is still fault tolerance for one disk while rebuilding, and 2 when all online?

WHS is very easy to use and set up, but the cost of duplication gets to be quite large with larger arrays.

yeah, i was thinking of how i'd have to get larger server case or something for drive space, plus like i mentioned above i could possibly use a pci-e slot on my main mobo, and keep the array local for the time being for cost purposes.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Do you mean you have existing disks with data on them that you'd like to keep?

yeah, basically i want to know if i can migrate data and expand array at same time, for example if i had 4 1TB drives, then purchased 4 additional identical 1TB (more for raid 6 i'm not sure of minimum for that, 5 drives?) can i migrate that data over to 4-5 drive array then use those drives to expand array to 8 total, or whatever? Is expansion an issue because the array is left unprotected while it incorporates new drives, or are there other issues also?

Thanks again!
rlr

 

[runLoganrun]

These are 2 cards i was looking at, the First one, Areca, more expensive, says has raid 6 "if supported". Do they mean OS? using win7600 x64 right now.

and This one, rocket raid, no onboard memory, no raid 6, but much less expensive.

They both say work with vista so I would hope they work fine with 7, the areca however does not specify 64 bit support, although i saw a consumer review that mentioned getting 64 bit drivers for it, it seems like it should.

any input on these two cards for my purposes?
I'm leaning towards wanting the raid6, so i may just have to hold out a little longer for the first controller.

thanks a lot,
rlr

 

[keenan]

yes, was looking at raid6 also, so with that then is there is still fault tolerance for one disk while rebuilding, and 2 when all online?

Exactly. As long as there are at least n-2 disks live in the array, all data can be recovered.

I think you're over-estimating the cost of a dedicated box. You don't need much for a file server/NAS. It can be done for a couple hundred bucks.

yeah, basically i want to know if i can migrate data and expand array at same time, for example if i had 4 1TB drives, then purchased 4 additional identical 1TB (more for raid 6 i'm not sure of minimum for that, 5 drives?) can i migrate that data over to 4-5 drive array then use those drives to expand array to 8 total, or whatever? Is expansion an issue because the array is left unprotected while it incorporates new drives, or are there other issues also?

If you expand the array, which is supported on most hardware cards and Linux softraid, it will happen online. You can just add the disks to the array and wait while the array is rebuilt; usually you get access to the full storage immediately. I'm fairly sure that you don't sacrifice any tolerance for failure during this operation, but I'm not 100% certain on that. I do remember reading a listserv post indicating that this was the case with Linux softraid expansion. You never lose access to the data that's already on the array.

What I was talking about was migrating possible existing storage (non-RAID) and incorporating your existing data into a new RAID setup. This is possible, at least with Linux softraid. You can start with a degraded 1-disk RAID1 using the disk containing your files, then add a second disk and allow it to rebuild a full RAID1. Once that's complete, you can add a third disk (or n disks) and migrate to RAID5 or RAID6, all without losing data. If your disks are NTFS formatted with MBR partitions though, this isn't going to work well in a practical sense, but I've done it a couple times with Linux LVM setups.

 

[XS Janus]

Go for the new LSi 9260-8i
New gen. and through put only attainable with SSDs!

 

[magnetik]

It's all in the main rig and didn't have any issues at all with 7 x64. I was also able to expand my drives after adding 3 more 1TB drives. I was also still able to access my array during the rebuild, however, it took like a week and a half. Next time I will copy everything off and start new.

thanks- is that in a separate case, or your main rig?
so that's a hardware controlled card then, i assume for the price, i googled it and it was 5something, haven't checked ebay yet though (even though that usually shows up in google), there are other cards too, but they're right up there also.

I was thinking that i could get an 4890x2 when they come out, and then make use of that other pci-e slot, it would be less for right now than rebuilding whole other box to have array on main machine, even though i'd rather them separate, then i could migrate it over to other one later.

So you didn't have any compatibility issues with your card and windows 7 x64?

thanks for input,
rlr

 

[runLoganrun]

I think you're over-estimating the cost of a dedicated box. You don't need much for a file server/NAS. It can be done for a couple hundred bucks.

yeah, prob, i already have an inexpensive case, it's mostly the storage goodies that cost the most, depending on # of drives, and controller used. I was thinking though that if I just started out with the minimum drives i need for now, and spring for the card, that it would still be cheaper at the moment, and then i could move everything to a dedicated box, but maybe best to wait to do it all at once though so don't have to move array. I have an a8n-sli32 mobo that may or may not be functional which is in the other case i have, it's either that or the processor that has gone bad, prob processor (no memory post beep code), I'm 99% that the memory is fine. It coincided with drive failure which was strange. I shut down, removed drive, and it wouldn't power on again. Unfortunately I don't have another s939 chip to test with it, and ironically they are quite expensive now, compared to newer offerings, so don't really want to buy one and find out it's the board, thought I would just start with some newer gear.

You can just add the disks to the array and wait while the array is rebuilt; usually you get access to the full storage immediately. You never lose access to the data that's already on the array.

somebody said it took them a week to add 3 disks to array, is that right? is this where hardware raid is better?

What I was talking about was migrating possible existing storage (non-RAID) and incorporating your existing data into a new RAID setup. This is possible, at least with Linux softraid. You can start with a degraded 1-disk RAID1 using the disk containing your files, then add a second disk and allow it to rebuild a full RAID1. Once that's complete, you can add a third disk (or n disks) and migrate to RAID5 or RAID6, all without losing data. If your disks are NTFS formatted with MBR partitions though, this isn't going to work well in a practical sense, but I've done it a couple times with Linux LVM setups.

That's really cool, so you can change an existing array from one type of raid to another? When you say if disks are NTFS formatted with MBR partitions, etc, do you mean the data I would be adding to the array, or how the array is formatted, doesn't it have just one MBR?

 

[keenan]

somebody said it took them a week to add 3 disks to array, is that right? is this where hardware raid is better?

Every bit on every disk is rewritten, it takes significantly longer than a resync, but that does seem excessive. Last time I did it (3x500GB -> 4x500GB) it took 4 or 5 hours on my Linux softraid. This is a big differentiating factor between controllers though, and some will only let you grow onto one new disk, so you need to do the process several times to add several disks. Generally the new storage is available immediately, you just get reduced performance until the shuffling is done.

That's really cool, so you can change an existing array from one type of raid to another? When you say if disks are NTFS formatted with MBR partitions, etc, do you mean the data I would be adding to the array, or how the array is formatted, doesn't it have just one MBR?

Well, not universally, but yes. You can go from RAID1 or RAID0 to RAID5, or any of them to RAID6 (provided you have the necessary number of spare disks) with Linux, I'm not sure but I imagine at least some hardware cards offer this feature as well.

If you initially start with an MBR + NTFS disk, that whole partition structure and etc. will be duplicated onto the front of the RAID volume. It's probably possible to make it fully usable this way, but there are issues both with resizing MBR and partitions in general on RAID volumes are a bad idea. If you're going from a single disk NTFS filesystem to a Linux softraid box with at least 3 disks, I'd first set up the array with your new blank disks and then copy the data from the NTFS disk (not the filesystem, just the files) to the RAID, and then when that's done you can add that disk to the RAID as well and grow/migrate it if necessary. Then you don't have to deal with partitions or crappy filesystems that can't be easily resized in Linux.

 

[Wibla]

New storage is available after the OCE is done, atleast on 3ware, this is because of all the reshuffling of data you have to do in order to keep data integrity before its done, it basically recalculates and rewrites everything, and this takes time.

 

[magnetik]

New storage is available after the OCE is done, atleast on 3ware, this is because of all the reshuffling of data you have to do in order to keep data integrity before its done, it basically recalculates and rewrites everything, and this takes time.

true. all of my previous storage was available during the rebuild. At the end I thought I messed something up since the storage manager said I had my full storage but windows told me otherwise. I just had to go into disk management and expand my drive. doh. It also might have been faster if I added one drive at a time.. but didn't know this is how it's supposed to be done. heh It also probably was slow because I had 3tb filled before I added the drives. It seemed to rebuild faster as it got closer to finishing. Now that I know how long it takes.. I would have just copied the 3TB off somewhere else and redid the array.

 

[runLoganrun]

In software RAID, all the RAID-ing happens in the operating system. As long as you're using the same OS and have block access to the same disks (even if the controller type or other hardware changes), you'll be able to access your data. As a side point, it's generally safe to just clone or move your boot disk to another machine with *nix OS's, while Windows really should be reinstalled. You can migrate your whole system very quickly to new hardware should anything fail, it's basically just a matter of unplugging the disks and moving them to a new system, and everything will just work (almost).

hey,
sorry i couldn't get back sooner, thanks a lot for all your help....

with this one are you saying that if i'm using software raid, I can't reinstall OS, or I have to reformat the array, or how does that work.

and somewhere somebody said that if a power failure, and no ups or bbu, that soft raid would have to rebuild array. does that mean that hard raid would not have this problem?

i decided i'd go with raid 6, seems like the best solution for what i need, and is ample fault tolerance. no it's not a "true backup" as earlier poster pointed out, but it is excellent protection in case of drive failure, which is the chief concern, this is all just media. i do keep my core file storage and music backed up to an external which is disconnected from the computer.

as far as starting the array in my current case then moving it to another case, is that a consideration in hard or soft raid, if there could be a different OS on that machine? prob just going to put win7 on it and share out the files, I guess I don't see why I'd need a server OS, when this would accomplish what i need. But, may use something else win7 being brand new and all, although i love it some of the compatibility issues have caused crashes for me, don't want that on server, less, or next to no apps on the server though, could make big difference as far as any conflicts. idk.

i guess i just want the best, easiest, most reliable solution for a card. no, i def don't want to drop 4-500 clams on one, but if that's the best solution i would hold out until i could do it. also what's best for long term, reformatting OS's, and such? money aside.

thanks again,
rlr

 

[runLoganrun]

hey,
i decided i'd go with raid 6, seems like the best solution for what i need, and has ample fault tolerance, for my purposes. no it's not a "true backup" as earlier poster pointed out, but it is excellent protection in case of drive failure, which is the chief concern, this is all just media. i do keep my core file storage and music backed up to an external which is disconnected from the computer. i think that it will, unfortunately, work out that I'll start the array in my current case then move it to a dedicated case, unless this is too problematic.


considering hard or soft raid, is one easier, or more reliable for this sort of thing, moving to another case, like if there could be a different OS on that dedicated box i move it to?


if i'm using software raid, I can't reinstall OS, or I have to reformat the array. what does that mean exactly? i'm assuming reformatting, in this context, just means that it's rebuilding the parity stripe (or stripes in this case), but not affecting other data on drives, but is meanwhile unavailable, and not protected for any fault tolerance, even with raid 6?


and somewhere somebody said that if a power failure, and no ups or bbu, that soft raid would have to rebuild array. does that mean that hard raid would not have this problem? is it common to use a ups in conjunction with raid 5 or 6?


prob just going to put win7 on it (dedicated box) and share out the files, I guess. I'm currently running that on my pc, I don't see why I'd need a server OS, when this would accomplish what i need, right?


i guess i just want the best, fastest, easiest, and most importantly, reliable solution for a card. no, i def don't want to drop 4-500 clams on one, but if that's the best solution i would hold out until i could do it, rather than get something I won't necessarily be as happy with. also what's best for long term, reformatting OS's, and such? money aside.

thanks again,
rlr

bump
thanks, think i pretty much got this dialed, still had cpl more qstns though....
rlr