WHS Vail

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Might be cheaper to get started, but if redundancy is your goal, Duplication (ala the WHS Pool) gets quite expensive very quickly, and before you get too many drives it easily begins costing more than even a rather expensive RAID controller. Not to mention the logistics of managing the extra drives.

Given the choices, what would you do? RAID(1,5,6,etc) or Drive pool?

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Might be cheaper to get started, but if redundancy is your goal, Duplication (ala the WHS Pool) gets quite expensive very quickly, and before you get too many drives it easily begins costing more than even a rather expensive RAID controller. Not to mention the logistics of managing the extra drives.

A good, 8 port RAID6 card is going to cost you close to $1000 before you've even purchased a drive. You can get a 4 port for less, but then you're stuck with just 2TB of storage, since you need 2 ports for the parity drives. For just a little bit more than that, you can get 6 2TB drives, a 5x1 port multiplier, and a 5-in-3 drive enclosure. In my mind, the 2nd option sounds much cheaper. I'm sincerely interested in how you would build a RAID6 array that's more cost effective. Maybe there's something simple I've overlooked?

Also, RAID5 or RAID6 is not the same as duplication. You don't get the same protection from RAID as you do from duplicated data, so it's not apples to apples. Simply put, RAID is not a backup solution, but duplication is.

To panteragstk, the big question really is, "What data do you really need to protect from downtime and how much space will it take up?" Then, what data can you not stand to lose? For me, software based parity (such as FlexRAID) would be feasible for recordings and movie rips and duplication would be used for family photos, music (due to the size of my collection), home movies, financial data, SageTV itself, and other irreplaceable files.

[jerryt]

Quick question...
I am building a Atom 330 server, with 4 bay raids off of motherboard (Asrock A330ION booting from eSata connector).

Which of these operating systems do I install?
1) WHS
2) Vail
3) Server 2008 R2 Workstation, Pre-modified http://www.win2008r2workstation.com/...hp?f=21&t=1230
4) or Windows 7.

My wants
1) I would like the flexiblity to watch videos with sage from this computer.
2) Microsoft DTV DVD Decoders are important
3) I want the centralized backup of all computers

Thanks

[bialio]

Windows 7 probably meets these needs the best - you might have to get an aftermarket backup solution, which there are many.

btl.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

Given the choices, what would you do? RAID(1,5,6,etc) or Drive pool?

The Drive Pool is just too inefficient IMO. I don't want to have (or pay for) the number of drives required to duplicate many TB of data. So I'm still evaluating my options. If you don't already have a server running, and/or don't mind running another one, I think unRAID is a very compelling option.

Right now I'm still investigating Sage + unRAID on top of ESXi.

Originally Posted by Skirge01

A good, 8 port RAID6 card is going to cost you close to $1000 before you've even purchased a drive.

More like $500 for a new, top-of-the-line one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-068-_-Product

Older models (still with RAID-6 and all the features) are available for less.

You can get a 4 port for less, but then you're stuck with just 2TB of storage, since you need 2 ports for the parity drives. For just a little bit more than that, you can get 6 2TB drives, a 5x1 port multiplier, and a 5-in-3 drive enclosure. In my mind, the 2nd option sounds much cheaper. I'm sincerely interested in how you would build a RAID6 array that's more cost effective. Maybe there's something simple I've overlooked?

First things first, I see no point using RAID-6 on a 2 or 3 drive array.

So what if you need 6TB of storage. That's 3 2TB drives plus redundancy drives, let's assume those are $120 a pop.

RAID-5:
9690SA-4i - $300
4x 2TB = 4 * $120 = $480
Total: $780

Duplication
6x 2TB = 6 * $120 = $720
PMP or Controller = $50-100
Total = $770-820

Or, let's go big, let's say you need 12TB of storage.

RAID-6:
9690SA-8I - $500
8x 2TB = 8 * $120 = $960
$1460 Total

Duplication:
12x 2TB = 12 * 120 = $1440
3x PMP or controller = 3* $50 = $150
Total $1590

You need account for the extra PSU you need for 50% more drives, the PMPs, and or controllers, and the case to hold them. Maybe not a lot more expensive, but more expensive. And that's for about the cheapest drives you can get, if you get "better" drives, the situation moves even further in favor of RAID.

If you're under say 4 drives worth of storage, duplication isn't that big of a deal.

Also, RAID5 or RAID6 is not the same as duplication. You don't get the same protection from RAID as you do from duplicated data, so it's not apples to apples. Simply put, RAID is not a backup solution, but duplication is.

Duplication is not a backup strategy either, at least not in the form it takes on WHS. If you delete something from your WHS duplicated pool, the duplicate gets deleted again.

And as I say every time the RAID question comes up, in our context here, we've already got backups of 99% of what's on our servers, it's on the original DVDs, CDs, and BDs we ripped it from. Redundancy is thus protection/insurance against the work of reripping.

Any critical data, stuff that's unrecoverable needs to be copied or backed up to a disconnected, or offline (non realtime sync) location.

For me ...duplication would be used for family photos, music (due to the size of my collection), home movies, financial data, SageTV itself, and other irreplaceable files.

IMO Duplication (ala the WHS Pool) is not sufficient for stuff like that. IMO you need to burn that to DVDs or copy periodically to disconnected HDDs, upload to online backup or something of that sort. Unless the WHS copy is the copy from some other machine.

[jerryt]

Originally Posted by bialio

Windows 7 probably meets these needs the best - you might have to get an aftermarket backup solution, which there are many.

btl.

I have Acronis True Image but have not been able to restore from network.

Any other recommendations for network backup software?

[Skirge01]

Let's be fair here. A single PSU can easily handle 15-20 drives. I have 13 drives on a 1k PSU and it barely pulls 400W under full load.

PMP's that I've seen and currently use are about 2"x3", so I don't think they take up much space. They mount just fine to the mobo tray or to the side of the case.

You're still going to need a case to hold the drives, no matter whether you use RAID or WHS, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

Someone who duplicates their entire pool doesn't know how to set up a backup process and determine what data cannot be lost permanently or temporarily. This is precisely why WHS allows you to turn duplication on or off at the folder level.

We definitely have a difference of opinion on backup processes. To me, your "backup" process is archiving and 99% of users will never utilize an archiving solution. That's almost exclusively used in business scenarios. It's pretty much impossible to accidentally delete something from Windows and have no way of getting it back. So, duplication is my idea of a backup.

Thanks for linking to the SAS card. I hadn't looked into those before and was quite surprised to learn how a single mini-SAS cable can fan out to accommodate 4 SATA drives.

[bialio]

It's pretty much impossible to accidentally delete something from Windows and have no way of getting it back. So, duplication is my idea of a backup.

It's not so much protection against user error (accidental delete, etc) but catastrophe that irreplaceable files need - if you take a lighting bolt to your WHS, or your house burns down - I hope you had the pictures of your children's first day somewhere else.

Duplication in the same machine doesn't really protect you from anything other than a single drive failure - which is nice, and can save your bacon (it has actually saved mine) if things take a really bad turn, but it's not anywhere near the protection I require for the priceless family pics/videos that I have over 100GB of now.....

btl.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

Let's be fair here. A single PSU can easily handle 15-20 drives. I have 13 drives on a 1k PSU and it barely pulls 400W under full load.

Startup's the problem. Unless you can get staggered spinup working (can you with PMPs?) you need a rather large PSU to spin up 10+ drives. I've been through three on my server because I've got (IIRC) 12 drives and no staggered spinup. Yes the system only draws about 200W while running, but it pulls a lot of current at startup and has been hard on PSUs.

PMP's that I've seen and currently use are about 2"x3", so I don't think they take up much space. They mount just fine to the mobo tray or to the side of the case.

I'm not talking about PMPs, I'm talking about the drives. You've got to start moving into big/special cases for 10+ drives.

You're still going to need a case to hold the drives, no matter whether you use RAID or WHS, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

Yes, but (in the example above) you don't need a server case for 8 drives, you probably would for 12 or 14.

Someone who duplicates their entire pool doesn't know how to set up a backup process and determine what data cannot be lost permanently or temporarily. This is precisely why WHS allows you to turn duplication on or off at the folder level.

Like I said above (or did I?), if you only want a little data redundant, then duplication can make a lot of sense. If you've only got say a drive or two worth of stuff you want redundant, it doesn't make much sense to go for a RAID array.

But if you're like me and have invested a ton of time ripping an cataloging hundreds of discs, then you want the entire dataset redundant. Duplication is just impractical for something like that.

As far as backup I think I made my posiiton on that clear already.

We definitely have a difference of opinion on backup processes. To me, your "backup" process is archiving and 99% of users will never utilize an archiving solution. That's almost exclusively used in business scenarios.

That's unfortunate, because that's what you need to do if you want your family photos or personal documents really safe. Businesses do it because they've learned what it takes.

Apple's Time Machine/Time Capsule is a good example of (somewhat overkill IMO) backup.

It's pretty much impossible to accidentally delete something from Windows and have no way of getting it back.

Not on a network drive. There's no recycle bin on a network drive (that I've ever seen). Delete it, it's gone.

So, duplication is my idea of a backup.

That's unfortunate. Unless you're talking a duplicate on a separate machine that's not maintained in real time. Duplication is no more "backup" than RAID-1 is.

[Skirge01]

I'll going to call it a day after one last comment, since this back and forth isn't adding anything to the thread, IMO. As in business, you need to balance risk and convenience. In a utopian world, where money is no object and time is endless, yes, RAID, duplication, and archiving would be the Holy Grail for saving data. But, back here in reality, if it's too difficult to do, people won't bother. Most people don't have any backups at all. Duplication is a huge step for them and will keep them happy in just about every scenario, save for certain disaster situations. That's not unfortunate, it's reality. Teaching those people enough about how RAID arrays work and all its caveats most likely falls too far from the convenience side, as well as the risk not being seen as severe enough. IMO, WHS balances RISK and CONVENIENCE perfectly (except for that darn system drive backup issue in v1).

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

In a utopian world, where money is no object and time is endless, yes, RAID, duplication, and archiving would be the Holy Grail for saving data. But, back here in reality, if it's too difficult to do, people won't bother. Most people don't have any backups at all. Duplication is a huge step for them and will keep them happy in just about every scenario, save for certain disaster situations. That's not unfortunate, it's reality.

Doesn't mean it's good, or right, or that it should be advocated. That's my point. Just because "people do it" doesn't mean it's a good idea. As you say, most people don't backup anything at all, that doesn't mean backup isn't something that should be recommended and done.

Teaching those people enough about how RAID arrays work and all its caveats most likely falls too far from the convenience side, as well as the risk not being seen as severe enough.

Let's be very clear, there's sort of two discussions going on here:

1) RAID (parity redundancy) vs WHS Folder Duplicatoin

2) Whether WHS Folder Duplication (alone) or RAID for that matter is a suitable form of backup.

First things first, I'm not saying anyone needs RAID.

Regarding 1), the assumption in my comments is that you've already decided you want redundancy, so I'm comparing the relative costs of the two options. Where as disk count and disk cost increase, RAID becomes cheaper.

Regarding 2), if you've only got your data in the Pool and Folder Duplication on, you don't have a backup, you have redundancy. IMO you're fooling yourself if you think it's as safe as a true, disconnected snapshot backup. I think it's disingenuous to call Folder Duplication backup as it is not, it's not as secure. Now if you understand the difference between redundancy by Duplication and a true snapshot backup, and are comfortable with the risks, more power to you.

I'm not. My irreplaceable data (eg digital photos) are store on my NAS (which uses a form of RAID) and periodically burned to DVDs.

Now if you're talking about the (Folder Duplicated) WHS copy being a backup of stuff on another machine, that's a different story.

[panteragstk]

This discussion got a bit off topic, but that happens. My original question about WHS drive pool vs RAID (raid level aside). I understand that there is no perfect solution. My main concern is when there is a drive failure which one will prove to be the better when rebuilding. If the array craps out due to failure and I have to recopy all of my data then there is no benefit over just using single drives. That is why I ask all the questions. I'm not asking for backup solutions for the important data. I've already got a system for that. I just want protection in case of a drive failure. I'm trying to avoid re-ripping the data back to the array or single drive.

The main thing I need to know before investing anything is what is the simplest/cost effective way to get some level of protection over single drives without having a server down for 5 days while the RAID5 array is rebuilding (exageration). That, and if the raid card dies and a compatible model isn't available I'm under the impression that one would be in big trouble. Then WHS v1 and v2 seem to have diffrent meathods of pooling data so that doesn't help either.

unRAID looks pretty cool to me, but I need more info before I go that route.

I think WHS paired with a good raid or unraid or flexraid or whatever would be the ultimate setup. What I'm really interested in finding out is how good the new drive extender is. Has anyone had a chance to test it out?

[stanger89]

Personally I think people are irrationally affraid of RAID 5/6. Sure there are horror stories out there, but they're by far the exception and generally from people using "cheap" solution (ie not 3ware, Areca, LSI, etc).

I know with 3ware, even if the controller dies, if you can find pretty much any other 3ware controller of the same series or newer, the array is fine.

Of course along those lines you'll see horror stories from WHS too.

Personally I really like unRAID for everything but the fact that it essentially requires it's own machine.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Personally I think people are irrationally affraid of RAID 5/6. Sure there are horror stories out there, but they're by far the exception and generally from people using "cheap" solution (ie not 3ware, Areca, LSI, etc).

I know with 3ware, even if the controller dies, if you can find pretty much any other 3ware controller of the same series or newer, the array is fine.

Of course along those lines you'll see horror stories from WHS too.

Personally I really like unRAID for everything but the fact that it essentially requires it's own machine.

I'm liking unRAID the more I read. It seems like it works the same way drive pooling in WHS v1 works. Data isn't stripped it is just stored on the drives and if one drive were to fail it is easily recovered. Rebuilding the array is what I worry about.

I wouldn't mind building a machine just for unRAID. I've got too many spare parts as it is. Might as well put them to good use.

[PGPfan]

I have an unRAID system, and a WHS system (both work quite well together incidently) and unRAID works very differently from the drive pool in WHS. unRAID is actually a RAID-4 system - it uses a true parity drive - whereas WHS uses the drive extender concept of tombstones representing files spread throught the drive pool.

I use unRAID to store dvd rips and music, WHS for system backups, sage recordings, photo's, etc. The photo's on WHS, and any other 'critical' files are backed up online to Crashplan, and I also use duplication on the photos.

It's been a very reliable system for me so far, and everthing is seamlessly controlled via Sage (naturally).

-PGPfan

[Oats]

WHS vs RAID really depends on how much space you need/how many drives. I think 6 drives is the max I would go in WHS (7 with OS) which is 6TB. If you need more space than that raid is better.

This is my rough cost estimate (a little different than Strangers because I would use a cheaper raid controller and consider drive selection). WHS drives costs $120 as it can use any 2TB drive. RAID requires you to avoid the cheapest drives so we'll put them at $150 for 2TB, and $120 for a Dell perc5 raid card.

2TB WHS (2 drives) $240. 2TB RAID1 (2 drives) $420.

4TB WHS (4 drives) $480. 4TB RAID5 (3 drives) $570.

6TB WHS (6 drives) $720. 6TB RAID5 (4 drives) $720.

8TB WHS (8 drives + controller + drive bays) $1100. 8TB RAID5 (5 drives) $870.

As you go higher RAID's cost advantage just keeps increasing since WHS will require a special case and a larger power supply. I included the 2TB option in case you want to start out small and build up as you need more space.

Other things to consider.
-WHS will take less time to rebuild the duplication than RAID will take to rebuild the array with a new drive.
-if a drive fails WHS can take any brand/size drive to replace it. RAID requires the same size drive be used, same brand is a good idea too.
-starting small and building up is a good idea. Just make sure you consider the time it will require you to fill up space and add new drives. There is a $/GB sweet spot you can take advantage of with WHS when larger drives come out. With raid you are always stuck with the same size unless you replace all of your drives.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by PGPfan

I have an unRAID system, and a WHS system (both work quite well together incidently) and unRAID works very differently from the drive pool in WHS. unRAID is actually a RAID-4 system - it uses a true parity drive - whereas WHS uses the drive extender concept of tombstones representing files spread throught the drive pool.

I use unRAID to store dvd rips and music, WHS for system backups, sage recordings, photo's, etc. The photo's on WHS, and any other 'critical' files are backed up online to Crashplan, and I also use duplication on the photos.

It's been a very reliable system for me so far, and everthing is seamlessly controlled via Sage (naturally).

-PGPfan

do you have any problems with access times with unraid?

[PGPfan]

When I play back a movie from unRAID through Sage, there is a 2-3 second pause for the appropriate unRAID drive to spool up, but it causes no errors or anything like that. In fact, it really doesn't bother anyone that's used the system (or at least they've never complained about it to me). I do mirror the music on the WHS system so that the family has instant access to music on their individual networked PC's, but otherwise it all plays through WHS-Sage just fine.

[keefb]

There is no right or wrong solution here. It's what works best for the individual. The beauty of WHS is it's simplicity. It tries to hide all the teccie stuff we love to argue about from the "average" user (Use that term with caution). For me, the big advantage of WHS is that you can grow the pool incrementally with whatever disks you have to hand at the time & just throw them into the pool & WHS will find them & use them. When you want to expand a RAID array, you normally have to destroy the array & build a new larger one, which means you have to move your data elsewhere whilst you do it.

I had a 4 disk RAID 5 array comprising 400GB SATA disks in my main PC. I replaced them with 1TB disks but had to recreate the array. I added the 4 old disks to the WHS by buying a reasonably cheap external ESATA box, putting the four 400GB disks in it without reformatting & without adding any drivers on the WHS box, restarted the server & was presented with 4 additional drives. Do I want to add them to the pool? Click "Yes". Job done, 1.6TB of extra space available for use 3 mins after restarting WHS.

I run SageV on the server but I have not included the TV recording drive in the pool, because I know throughput can be a bit pants when WHS is "Reorganising Clusters on the Server".

I totally agree with those posters that state that a single source of data backup is not sufficient for REALLY important data. If you have a fire or some kind person breaks in & nicks your kit, you're sunk. I have a firesafe in the garage with a portable USB disk drive in it & do a regular SyncToy copy of selected folders.

The other advantage is that all the "Always On" stuff is in concentrated on one PC, run off a small UPS to prevent it all going t*ts up when the power fails or blips. Couple that with using a HD200 as the Sage client & you can be watching a program about 10 seconds after pushing the On button on the remote.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by keefb

When you want to expand a RAID array, you normally have to destroy the array & build a new larger one, which means you have to move your data elsewhere whilst you do it.

Maybe a long time ago, but today, any RAID solution worth using can expand arrays without destroying data, it's called Online Capacity Expansion.

I had a 4 disk RAID 5 array comprising 400GB SATA disks in my main PC. I replaced them with 1TB disks but had to recreate the array. I added the 4 old disks to the WHS by buying a reasonably cheap external ESATA box, putting the four 400GB disks in it without reformatting & without adding any drivers on the WHS box, restarted the server & was presented with 4 additional drives. Do I want to add them to the pool? Click "Yes". Job done, 1.6TB of extra space available for use 3 mins after restarting WHS.

The problem with WHS for mass storage is the cost of redundancy is simply massive. You lose at least half your capacity to redundancy. It doesn't take long for the disk cost with that much loss to outweigh a lot of other solutions.

If you're not running Folder Duplication in WHS, well then you're comparing apples to hand grenades, you're comparing an entire OS to something that only provides redundancy (and a single volume).