fedora for storage

[korben_dallas]

I'm thinking of separating my storage off from my SageTV server.

1) More flexibility with storage options, and can experiment somewhat on storage layout and services.

2) Can utilize my SageTV server as a slim-mer client.. since clients are no longer obtainable.

Reading online, it seems Fedora would be a pretty good choice. Storage server will be on gigabit ether and headless.

Comments? Suggestions?

[mikejaner]

All of these I would recommend above using a full on OS* like Fedora, unless you are wanting to do other stuff besides File Shares etc...... *(Openindiana is a full OS based on Solaris)
FreeNAS: www.freenas.org
OpenFiler: www.openfiler.com
Nexxenta: http://www.nexentastor.org/
OpenIndiana + napp-it: www.openindiana.org and www.napp-it.org

[PiX64]

i highly recommend unraid. I have been using it for about 1.5 years now and its rock solid. Couldn't be happier.

ill see if i can dig up my old thread on it.

~Mike

[RocKKer]

Don't forget Linux software (mdadm) RAID, also reliable, fast and free. Use Samba to share to Windows.

[mikejaner]

Originally Posted by RocKKer

Don't forget Linux software (mdadm) RAID, also reliable, fast and free. Use Samba to share to Windows.

That comes in Fedora, which he mentioned in the OP.

[PiX64]

I can't seem to find the original post i created. i was using Perc 5/i hardware raid running on an ubuntu server which was nice, but not quite as nice as unraid and its practically limitless expansion options.

Unraid is opimitzed for media and does streaming media extremely well imo.

[drewg]

Originally Posted by korben_dallas;517858}

Reading online, it seems Fedora would be a pretty good choice. Storage server will be on gigabit ether and headless.

Comments? Suggestions?

Fedora has a pretty short support lifespan (something like 12 to 18 months). If you want to roll your own storage with Linux, go for CentOS6.

However, I'd strongly suggest going with ZFS via either a Solaris clone (nexenta) or FreeBSD if you want to roll your own, or with nexentastor or freenas if you want a pre-packaged storage server solution.

Drew

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by PiX64

I can't seem to find the original post i created. i was using Perc 5/i hardware raid running on an ubuntu server which was nice, but not quite as nice as unraid and its practically limitless expansion options.

Unraid is opimitzed for media and does streaming media extremely well imo.

+1 for unraid. Boots from usb thumbdrive. Use older hardware to build. Hasa free version.

ersion.

[BobPhoenix]

Originally Posted by SteveD

+1 for unraid. Boots from usb thumbdrive. Use older hardware to build. Hasa free version.

ersion.

+1

I especially like the ability to recover all drives except those with problems when you have more drives fail than parity count. So my 20 drive array if I lose one drive (like I recently did) I lose nothing. If I lose 2 drives I still have all the data intact on the remaining drives and if the parity drive was one of the ones that failed then I would only lose one drive.

[korben_dallas]

I cannot find any evidence that supports ZFS as being on par performance-wise with EXT4.

Yes I do want other services, so a full distro is my target (though I won't load *every* module).

I'm suspicious of unraid. I plan on recording directly to the storage server.

[Fuzzy]

Honestly, I still feel recording directly to the storage server is far from ideal no matter what the storage server. It just increases the chances of disrupted/faulty/missed recordings. Even if you record to a local drive on your sage server, and off-load to NAS after record, it would be FAR preferable to recording to network. If you are just looking for the fancy storage options that non-windows OS's provide, try rolling them into a VM on your sage server.

[drewg]

Originally Posted by korben_dallas

I cannot find any evidence that supports ZFS as being on par performance-wise with EXT4.

I think most of the comparisons you see are ancient. Give it a try. If you use small SSDs for an L2Arc and/or a ZIL, its far superior to EXT4.

I'm running the native linux (eg, not fuse) on my server with 3 very slow Hitachi 3TB drives in raid-z, and a small L2ARC, and the performance is stunning. Having a small 30G SSD for L2ARC is like having 30G of RAM, all devoted to caching your files. The upgrade from a similar configuration, but with XFS in a traditional mdadm software raid5 is just amazing.

BTW, that is another option ... ZFS on something like Ubuntu is fairly stable. See http://zfsonlinux.org/. The reason I chose Linux is that I use my SageTV server as a home workstation, and I needed to be able to run KVM (linux virtualization software) for work related reasons. The reason I chose Ubuntu over RHEL or Fedora is that they have hooks to rebuild the ZFS module on every kernel update on Ubuntu, but not on RPM based distros.

Drew

[mikejaner]

Honestly, I still feel recording directly to the storage server is far from ideal no matter what the storage server. It just increases the chances of disrupted/faulty/missed recordings. Even if you record to a local drive on your sage server, and off-load to NAS after record, it would be FAR preferable to recording to network. If you are just looking for the fancy storage options that non-windows OS's provide, try rolling them into a VM on your sage server.

I agree though somewhat disagree with your VM suggestion. If you have a second PC connected to the same switch, sharing storage with your SageTV server, I don't see how the reliability could be any less than with a VM running on your SageTV server. Switches in my house fail way less frequently than PC's. Most people probably have multiple PC's connect to the same power/UPS, so even power issues would affect everything at once. A VM running on the SageTV server introduces it's own potential issues. Yes, any networking done between the two boxes is internal, and never hits the physical network, but you introduce other factors of potential reliabilty issues. One is resources of the host PC vs. the VM. The other is the added factor of the virtualization software in the middle of things. I think either solution is going to have it's faults, but neither would be more reliable IMHO.
That being said, I did like you and record to local storage(hard drives are big enough to mirror in any windows os and have enough space).

I cannot find any evidence that supports ZFS as being on par performance-wise with EXT4.

I don't think ZFS is being pushed as a file system which is faster than EXT4, though it may be. It is being pushed as a better overall solution when you talk about RAID and a file system. When you combine RAIDZ with the ZFS file system, you get a more robust storage solution than traditional RAID with EXT4 etc... IMHO of course. I base this on the info about the features of ZFS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zfs . When replacing a failed drive ZFS only rebuilds data used, not the whole drive etc........
!!Correction, the following is wrong, I missread this somewhere!!
For example, like UnRAID, you can recover the files left after your parity protection number exceeds the tolerance.

[jbuszkie]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Honestly, I still feel recording directly to the storage server is far from ideal no matter what the storage server. It just increases the chances of disrupted/faulty/missed recordings. Even if you record to a local drive on your sage server, and off-load to NAS after record, it would be FAR preferable to recording to network.

I agree.. And this is what I do.. I record locally... and when I start running out
of space I move them over to the unraid box.
so +1 for unraid as well...

Jim

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by mikejaner

I agree though somewhat disagree with your VM suggestion. If you have a second PC connected to the same switch, sharing storage with your SageTV server, I don't see how the reliability could be any less than with a VM running on your SageTV server. Switches in my house fail way less frequently than PC's. Most people probably have multiple PC's connect to the same power/UPS, so even power issues would affect everything at once. A VM running on the SageTV server introduces it's own potential issues. Yes, any networking done between the two boxes is internal, and never hits the physical network, but you introduce other factors of potential reliabilty issues. One is resources of the host PC vs. the VM. The other is the added factor of the virtualization software in the middle of things. I think either solution is going to have it's faults, but neither would be more reliable IMHO.
That being said, I did like you and record to local storage(hard drives are big enough to mirror in any windows os and have enough space).

Just as you say, PC's are far less reliable than network switches.... requiring two separate systems to be operational, including any interconnecting network equipment, to be able to successfully record a program more than doubles your chances of a problem preventing a recording, which is what a sage server should avoid.

I never said a VM was a better option than a single, stand-alone sagetv system. I said it is better than two separate systems for serving/recording and storage. I, personally, in MANY years of sagetv usage, have yet to find a reason to NOT just use a single windows system, which includes all my storage on separate, independent drives. I used to run 4 drives in a RAID-5 setup, and have since, instead, moved to simple, independent drives. The key reason I did this was sage's change in the storage selection system, where it spreads the recordings across the drives more effectively. (Previously, RAID was pretty much required to get the bandwidth I needed).

In a sage-centric environment, the ONLY advantage to consolidated storage systems like WHS's Pool, UnRAID, etc, is is in the fault tolerance/parity capabilities. For me, there is nothing on my system that isn't easily replaced, and the simplicity of my current setup far outweighs the potential problems associated with drive failure data loss.

For items that I DO feel should be protected, I would either back up to a separate system, or use a snapshot parity system like FlexRAID.

[korben_dallas]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

in MANY years of sagetv usage, have yet to find a reason to NOT just use a single windows system

Re-open the SageTV store, and I agree with you. My current SageTV server is just too loud and too big to be a useful client. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, and had I purchased an HD300 or two, I would not be having this issue.

[Fuzzy]

You could buy a long enough HDMI cable to put the system far from your viewing location for near the cost of a client license...

[korben_dallas]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

You could buy a long enough HDMI cable to put the system far from your viewing location for near the cost of a client license...

I lol'ed because it's not a bad idea. Alas, I like to keep my cable STBs near the TV. Too many one-off issues in the past.

[mikejaner]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I never said a VM was a better option than a single, stand-alone sagetv system. I said it is better than two separate systems for serving/recording and storage.

Oh, I know you didn't say that. I was referring to the idea of a SageTV server running a VM for the fancy storage portion vs two separate networked PC's.

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I, personally, in MANY years of sagetv usage, have yet to find a reason to NOT just use a single windows system, which includes all my storage on separate, independent drives. I used to run 4 drives in a RAID-5 setup, and have since, instead, moved to simple, independent drives. The key reason I did this was sage's change in the storage selection system, where it spreads the recordings across the drives more effectively. (Previously, RAID was pretty much required to get the bandwidth I needed).

For some reason, I can't seem to get over the fear of separate non fault-tolerant drives recording shows for me. I stick with a mirror nowadays vs. my RAID5. I think it's because the WAF is so easily destroyed when a show is not available right away etc...

[Fuzzy]

We aren't in a 'watch something right after it records' household.. in fact, we will often not start watching a show until at least half the season is recorded. There is plenty of time to acquire the missed episodes elsewhere in that time.

That said, I've only ever had one recording drive fail, and its data was fully recoverable (the fault lying in the MFT portion) to another drive. I think I lost one episode of Wow Wow Wubsy in that 'catastrophe'. And it delayed us being able to watch a few of those shows for a couple days while the new drive was shipped, and I did the (unattended) data recovery. I actually haven't even pulled the faulty drive out of my server yet. It's just disabled in windows...