Whats my best solution

[fizzgig656]

OK im setting up an older server to use as a backup. I want to use what i have which hardware wise is fine, but for storage what's my best use of these HDD's, really i want good capacity, but stripping is a bit dangerous. I have 10x 174GB, 13x 73GB and a few 36GB,

Now i read a few threads etc and trying to make use of it but cant decided what's best. Ideally id like to add it all to one big volume and have some the ability to loose any 1 or possible 2 drives.

I realise i can mirror each pair and add it to a pool (if ive understood the logic of drives, Vdevs pools volumes etc) which i can have as one big volume. or i could have 3 goups of the same size drives as separate volumes. I understand expanding raidz isnt easy and exspanding is only possible if you replace each drive to a higher capacty and raid z uses the smallest drive to work our volume ~(again i think).

any help please.

 

[gpsguy]

This is one way. if you do the in-place upgrade, you won't see the additional storage until all the disks have been replaced.

You can also add additional vdevs, it's recommended to use the same number of drives and type [RAIDz1, 2, ...] as the original, to extend the existing volume.

I understand expanding raidz isnt easy and exspanding is only possible if you replace each drive to a higher capacty and raid z uses the smallest drive to work our volume ~(again i think)

 

[Robert Trevellyan]

10x 174GB, 13x 73GB

If you striped all 23 of those drives together, with no redundancy, you'd have less than 3TB. Is it really worth it, when you could put, say, two 3TB drives in a mirror and have more storage with 50% redundancy?

 

[Pheran]

I have to agree with Robert, unless you are trying to create some sort of high-throughput array with a crapload of spindles, you'd be better off with a single pair of 4TB drives than that huge mess.

If you must use those drives, I'd probably do 10 x 174 RAIDZ2 + 7 x 73 RAIDZ2 + 6 x 73 RAIDZ2. Don't even bother with the 36s. That will leave you with roughly 2TB of space not counting overhead, and you'll be using a ridiculous amount of power to get it.

 

[Mlovelace]

I'm all for finding a purpose for functional hardware, to an extent, and I'd say those drives have exceeded that extent. The capacity just isn't there and you have to consider what you'll swap failed drives with. It wouldn't make sense to buy referb 174GB or 73GB drives if you could find them, so just a couple replaced drives with modern size volumes will exceed the capacity of the array.

 

[Stux]

The per bay cost far and away exceeds the value of the drives.

 

[fizzgig656]

OK, thanks for all your replies, just wanted to try and make use of existing drives and hardware. trouble is the server i have in mind is an older SCSI only and also got an external SCSI dual channel expansion bay (7+7 bays). so i would needs to probably buy a newer server or try converting (changing back planes and adding a controller). I can see it makes more sense to spend on new SAS or SATA drives if im buying new. maybe it will be better to spring for new stuff.

cheers all.

 

[Stux]

I'd go with 7 * 174GB in RaidZ2 + 7 * 73GB in RAIDZ2.

Scrap the 36GB drives.

Gives you 870+365 GB = 1.2TB

Keep the others as spares.

When you fill it, buy a pair of 4TB drives and replace the lot.

I don't know if FreeNAS supports SCSI. Is the sever 64bit? Does it have 8GB of ram?

Alternatively, Just put the 12 73GBs as mirrors, and the 36GB with the last 73GB.

As you burn through drives, replace them with your 174GB drives, or as you need more space.

You'll eventually expand to 5x174 + 2x73 = 1TB.

But your IOPS would be fairly good.

Once you actually end up with 800GB of data... buy a pair of 4TB and replace the lot.

OR save the electricity and complexity and buy the 4TB drives now ;)

 

[snaptec]

Just have a look at the power consumption.
If you dont need the iops, go with a mirror of 2 or 4 tb drives. It will be cheaper far earlier than you might think.
Some old Servers often Drake 500-1000w in idle


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

 

[fizzgig656]

I should of added this project isn't Home use like my Signature states, what i use at home which is correct.

Yeah fair enough, the server does support 64bit and SCSI do seem to work, Ill explain out a bit further, didnt want to fluff out my inital Question with all this info,

I have one Primergy server with 2 174gb SCSI's mirrored as one shared drive, Dual CPU Zeon, Dual Power supply, 8gb Ram ECC.
I have one Primergy server with 4 x500gb sata's (possiblt expanding to 6) as a RaidZ, again dual CPU Zeon, Dual Power and 12GB ram ECC.

Ive got most points of failure covered to some degree, and if all goes real T's up i can move the drives to another machine and move the USB drive over as a temp solution. was just thinking of a "Belt and Brace" these to a server with some form of backup of the most inportant data.
I do have use of a Quantum L600 Superloader (scsi connected 200/400gb tapes) but do not know how to set this up or if its possible. I've read its not easy if its compatable!

Cost of power is not as important as im paying the bills lol. cost of 4 new HDD's is a little harder to get people to pay for, but possible. I'd probably not bother with a backup server yet and cost upgrading the SATA's for now and mirror them instead of RaidZ

 

[Stux]

Mirrors don't protect from PEBKAC ;)

 

[fizzgig656]

lol, i know it as just PBCAK. same thing. or you calling me a user :(. It saves the loss due to HDD failure, weather the data thats there was meant to be there or deleted by a user before, that's not my problem.

 

[Stux]

lol, i know it as just PBCAK. same thing. or you calling me a user :(. It saves the loss due to HDD failure, weather the data thats there was meant to be there or deleted by a user before, that's not my problem.

No, I'm saying backups protect from someone accidentally mangling the original, which is possibly more likely than losing both mirrors.

No offense intended

 

[fizzgig656]

no offence taken. we gotta have a laugh!!!