Show "Hoarders", how much space did you use?

[drvnbysound]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

I had never done a thing with virtualization before installing ESXi and the learning curve wasn't all that bad.

The HDs attached to the card actually CAN'T be used as a datastore once you put the card in passthrough mode.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the card... if my MOBO has enough SATA ports is there a reason not to add the drives to the datastore and have the STV VM access them that way, rather than via the card? I'm assuming there may be a performance hit ???

If you have the space and don't mind the added noise, failure point, and power usage of a second physical computer, go for it. For me, I wanted everything under one roof. Obviously, if that one computer has a hardware failure, and ESXi can't run, none of the VMs can run until that gets fixed. That's not a big deal to me.

Yeah, right now I'm looking at the various options. I haven't come up with any way that I'd be able to setup the various things that I want and not have at least 2 physical machines. Fortunately I already have 2 machines available, but there may be a few tweaks that I might have to make due to ESXi and/or unRAID compatibility.

Options that I see for myself:

1) I'd leave my STV server alone (dedicated to STV only) and add a ESXi server for network/security VMs (VERY underutilized); the network/security software that I'm looking at are much more 'appliance-like' and are not applications that are installed on top of an OS - hence the need for the VMs. If I went this route, I'd still have to address STV storage issue(s) sooner than later... such RAIDing of my 'Movies' library, as well as monitoring space limitations.

2) Take my current STV server and put ESXi on it; virtualize STV, and add the various network/security VMs as well. Build a separate unRAID server to handle STV movie library, and possibly begin to archive STV recordings.

I know the thread you're talking about WRT the possible parity bottleneck. Again, just because one person has that issue or simply believes that will be an issue, doesn't make it true for everyone. I'll can pretty much guarantee you that no one around here has the exact same hardware and software setup, so it's comparing apples to oranges. A number of people could never get their HD-PVRs to record reliably, yet others (myself included) use them every day.

To address the possibility of it working, I'm thinking that I may build the unRAID server first and see how it handles recordings from the current STV server without modifying it yet. By not touching STV box first (virtualizing) and trying to address the storage problem first, this may minimize the STV downtime. If I can successfully record to unRAID great, if not, I'll just store my movies there, and DVR on HDDs physically on the ESXi machine.

Overall understood though. I've got (2) HD-PVRs that I read through a number of threads where others had issues - but I got both of mine up and running on the first try without any problems. That said, I did read through a LOT of threads and found some good step-by-step instructions for setup. I've documented a decent amount of my own setup processes and how-to's as well.

In all seriousness, if time truly is the enemy, then an HTPC probably isn't the right solution for your household and I'd go with the solution available from your TV provider. However, if you like to tinker (and will somehow find the time) in order to get things exactly how you want them, stick around.

That's definitely not the case. We had (and still have actually) a Comcast DVR. It hasn't been used in probably 6 months (I need to take it back) as I've transitioned my wife to using STV. She MUCH prefers STV now which is part of the time enemy. The last time I had her count them we watch something like 25 shows; their seasonal schedules vary, but there are definitely too many to try and record on a providers DVR... not to mention that we utilize STV extenders to access content in any room... and we can't forget to mention ComSkip!!! <3

The point is that STV is important and that's why I don't want to be 'tinkering' with it. I want to implement the change, get it up and running again, and enjoy it. I'm just trying to avoid a multi-week science project that doesn't work

I tried that converter for a couple of things and it never worked all that well, so let me know if you find success going that route. I'd be curious to know what you converted and any issues you experienced. I do suspect that you're going to need to do some form of set up with those HD-PVRs again, no matter what you do, but I could be wrong.

That's about what I'm expecting as well, but I figure it's worth a shot. It should be pretty easy to capture the image, and test the conversion. If it works it would be awesome, but if not I've got all I need to do it manually.

[drvnbysound]

BTW: I did some searching for tRAID earlier today - looking for some differences, comparisons and such. It actually took me a few minutes to figure out tRAID was the product of FlexRAID; it wasn't instantly apparent via tRAID searches, which kept defaulting to 'triad' results.

Anyhow, I'll be the first to admit that I was less than impressed when I saw this picture (nice jeans ): http://www.flexraid.com/wp-content/g...set4-adhoc.jpg

hosted directly on the FlexRAID site. I understand that this is [hopefully] a customer's build, but there is no way that I'm putting that picture on my company website (last picture): http://www.flexraid.com/screenshots/custom-systems/

I'm not usually the type of person to point something like this out, but that definitely stood out to me.

[IVB]

Originally Posted by drvnbysound

BTW: I did some searching for tRAID earlier today - looking for some differences, comparisons and such. It actually took me a few minutes to figure out tRAID was the product of FlexRAID; it wasn't instantly apparent via tRAID searches, which kept defaulting to 'triad' results.

Anyhow, I'll be the first to admit that I was less than impressed when I saw this picture (nice jeans ): http://www.flexraid.com/wp-content/g...set4-adhoc.jpg

hosted directly on the FlexRAID site. I understand that this is [hopefully] a customer's build, but there is no way that I'm putting that picture on my company website (last picture): http://www.flexraid.com/screenshots/custom-systems/

I'm not usually the type of person to point something like this out, but that definitely stood out to me.

Holy jeebus!

[BobPhoenix]

Originally Posted by drvnbysound

BTW: I did some searching for tRAID earlier today - looking for some differences, comparisons and such. It actually took me a few minutes to figure out tRAID was the product of FlexRAID; it wasn't instantly apparent via tRAID searches, which kept defaulting to 'triad' results.

Anyhow, I'll be the first to admit that I was less than impressed when I saw this picture (nice jeans ): http://www.flexraid.com/wp-content/g...set4-adhoc.jpg

hosted directly on the FlexRAID site. I understand that this is [hopefully] a customer's build, but there is no way that I'm putting that picture on my company website (last picture): http://www.flexraid.com/screenshots/custom-systems/

I'm not usually the type of person to point something like this out, but that definitely stood out to me.

Sorry I didn't write my posts to be as readable as I should have. Better sentence arrangement and spacing would have helped. In one post I did say however

Originally Posted by BobPhoenix

... I could have used FlexRaid's T-RAID ...

I suppose I should have said "Transparent RAID" as that is what he calls it. People have just shortened the name.

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by drvnbysound

I'm trying to wrap my head around the card... if my MOBO has enough SATA ports is there a reason not to add the drives to the datastore and have the STV VM access them that way, rather than via the card? I'm assuming there may be a performance hit ???

The only reason is to bypass the 2TB limit of ESXi. Otherwise, you certainly can attach the drives directly to the mobo. There's no performance hit either way. Attached directly to the mobo, ESXi handles everything. Attached to the card, the VM handles everything.

1) I'd leave my STV server alone (dedicated to STV only) and add a ESXi server for network/security VMs (VERY underutilized); the network/security software that I'm looking at are much more 'appliance-like' and are not applications that are installed on top of an OS - hence the need for the VMs. If I went this route, I'd still have to address STV storage issue(s) sooner than later... such RAIDing of my 'Movies' library, as well as monitoring space limitations.

2) Take my current STV server and put ESXi on it; virtualize STV, and add the various network/security VMs as well. Build a separate unRAID server to handle STV movie library, and possibly begin to archive STV recordings.

As I said, I run pfSense for my firewall and that runs under Linux, so I know what you're talking about. I had a separate computer (very old) when I ran IPCop, but when that computer died, I went the VM route to consolidate everything and switched to pfSense. I'd spend the money on a full tower, add some drive cages (e.g. 4in3, 5in3), and keep it all there. I picked up the CM Storm Styker and absolutely love it. You can easily find cheaper cases, but this one is a JOY to work on. You'll probably pay more in electric over the years for that 2nd computer than you would for a bigger case to house everything. Obviously, do what's best for you, though.

By not touching STV box first (virtualizing) and trying to address the storage problem first, this may minimize the STV downtime. If I can successfully record to unRAID great, if not, I'll just store my movies there, and DVR on HDDs physically on the ESXi machine.

What will also help is to do this over the spring/summer, after all the primetime shows have ended their seasons.

The point is that STV is important and that's why I don't want to be 'tinkering' with it. I want to implement the change, get it up and running again, and enjoy it. I'm just trying to avoid a multi-week science project that doesn't work

I wish I could reassure you, but I know that between working my regular job, household duties, and working on the server, that last one only gets a small percentage of my attention and usually just for a very short time on weekends. I've already taken days off of work to ensure I could focus on it during major issues/changes.

[BobPhoenix]

Note with ESXi 5.5 you can use Datastores and RDM'd drives bigger than 2TB but (and it is a big BUT) you have to use Version 10 VMs which means you have 60 days to configure them before the vSphere Management Client stops working. Then any updates you want to make cannot be done from the free version of ESXi. If you stick with Version 8 or earlier without 3TB support then the old Web Client will be able to update them like before just without the features of Version 10.

[drvnbysound]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

The only reason is to bypass the 2TB limit of ESXi. Otherwise, you certainly can attach the drives directly to the mobo. There's no performance hit either way. Attached directly to the mobo, ESXi handles everything. Attached to the card, the VM handles everything.

Got it.

So let me ask this... can you help me to understand the benefit of going with a software based RAID (e.g. unRAID, tRAID, etc) vs. a hardware based configuration? Is it just the ease of expansion for the software based systems? It's my understanding that a hardware based RAID is a lot faster that software based ones...

As I said, I run pfSense for my firewall and that runs under Linux, so I know what you're talking about. I had a separate computer (very old) when I ran IPCop, but when that computer died, I went the VM route to consolidate everything and switched to pfSense. I'd spend the money on a full tower, add some drive cages (e.g. 4in3, 5in3), and keep it all there. I picked up the CM Storm Styker and absolutely love it. You can easily find cheaper cases, but this one is a JOY to work on. You'll probably pay more in electric over the years for that 2nd computer than you would for a bigger case to house everything. Obviously, do what's best for you, though.

Yeah, for me, I already have (2) physical custom built machines available. The only additional hardware cost(s) would be HDDs, drive cage, possibly a RAID card, and MAYBE a few parts that may need to be swapped out due to lack of support of compatibility.

What will also help is to do this over the spring/summer, after all the primetime shows have ended their seasons.

That's a great idea. I'll have to check on the season schedules of the shows we watch. I do have some vacation time coming up as well... and many of them don't play new episodes on some of the holiday weeks.

I wish I could reassure you, but I know that between working my regular job, household duties, and working on the server, that last one only gets a small percentage of my attention and usually just for a very short time on weekends. I've already taken days off of work to ensure I could focus on it during major issues/changes.

Definitely agree. Fortunately, I've been pretty good at being able to dedicate particular weekends for specific projects as long as my significant other is aware of them in advance. I'm just trying to avoid a multi-week or month downtime of SageTV while trying to make these changes.

[drvnbysound]

Originally Posted by BobPhoenix

Sorry I didn't write my posts to be as readable as I should have. Better sentence arrangement and spacing would have helped. In one post I did say however
I suppose I should have said "Transparent RAID" as that is what he calls it. People have just shortened the name.

No worries. I probably glossed over the 'FlexRaid' in your post and just read it as tRAID since that's been the common nomenclature. Rather than trying to go back and find it spelled out (as you did), I figured it would be an easy Google search (for 'tRAID') to get more information. As I found out... not so much.

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by drvnbysound

So let me ask this... can you help me to understand the benefit of going with a software based RAID (e.g. unRAID, tRAID, etc) vs. a hardware based configuration? Is it just the ease of expansion for the software based systems? It's my understanding that a hardware based RAID is a lot faster that software based ones...

This is one of those touchy subjects for both types of users. I can tell you I've been bitten by the failure of a single drive in a hardware RAID setup causing me to lose all data on the entire array. I've also bit bitten by the failure of the RAID card itself, which often means the entire array is lost unless you replace the card with the exact model; even a similar model from the same manufacturer may not be able to recognize the array. Additionally, the drives are essentially blank without a RAID card which can see the array. Expansion of the RAID failing is somewhat commonplace and will cause you to lose the entire array. RAID contraction is generally a foreign language to hardware based RAIDs. All your drives need to be identical in size and speed, preferably even manufacturer.

I'm unfamiliar with unRAID, but I think it works similarly to tRAID. Under tRAID at least, all of the above situations are avoided. First, there's no card to fail in the first place. Second, if a single drive fails, the parity drive can repopulate the missing data onto a replacement drive (obviously, hardware RAID can do this part, but...). With tRAID, you can have multiple parity drives to cover multiple drive failures (beyond even RAID6). Third, even after a drive (or drives) fails, you still have access to the data on the remaining drives. You can pop a drive out, place it into another computer and access all the data stored on it just like any other drive. When a data drive fails, the worst case is that you lose that drive's worth of data (assuming the parity recreation fails for some reason). Fourth, expansion and contraction only recalculates parity, so there's no chance of harming the data drives during either process. Finally, drives can be any size, speed or manufacturer combination. The only requirement is that the parity drive (or drives) is at least as large as your largest data drive.

All that being said, a hardware based RAID is always going to be faster than a software based one. Your usage may or may not require that additional speed. For me, the benefits and cost savings of software RAID far outweigh anything gained by a hardware RAID.

[drvnbysound]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

This is one of those touchy subjects for both types of users. I can tell you I've been bitten by the failure of a single drive in a hardware RAID setup causing me to lose all data on the entire array. I've also bit bitten by the failure of the RAID card itself, which often means the entire array is lost unless you replace the card with the exact model; even a similar model from the same manufacturer may not be able to recognize the array. Additionally, the drives are essentially blank without a RAID card which can see the array. Expansion of the RAID failing is somewhat commonplace and will cause you to lose the entire array. RAID contraction is generally a foreign language to hardware based RAIDs. All your drives need to be identical in size and speed, preferably even manufacturer.

I'm unfamiliar with unRAID, but I think it works similarly to tRAID. Under tRAID at least, all of the above situations are avoided. First, there's no card to fail in the first place. Second, if a single drive fails, the parity drive can repopulate the missing data onto a replacement drive (obviously, hardware RAID can do this part, but...). With tRAID, you can have multiple parity drives to cover multiple drive failures (beyond even RAID6). Third, even after a drive (or drives) fails, you still have access to the data on the remaining drives. You can pop a drive out, place it into another computer and access all the data stored on it just like any other drive. When a data drive fails, the worst case is that you lose that drive's worth of data (assuming the parity recreation fails for some reason). Fourth, expansion and contraction only recalculates parity, so there's no chance of harming the data drives during either process. Finally, drives can be any size, speed or manufacturer combination. The only requirement is that the parity drive (or drives) is at least as large as your largest data drive.

All that being said, a hardware based RAID is always going to be faster than a software based one. Your usage may or may not require that additional speed. For me, the benefits and cost savings of software RAID far outweigh anything gained by a hardware RAID.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to such a basic question... I posted the question after speaking with an IA/IT guy that I work with who was recommending the hardware based solution primarily based on the speed/performance aspect... but also mentioning that it's what the large data centers use as well.

Nonetheless, I found most of what you said on the unRAID site about 45 minutes ago (here)

I only have a couple of drives that I could use for the raid system and I was really planning to buy all new HDDs to dedicate for this anyway... so the idea of requiring that HDDs be the same isn't that big of a deal for me. Basically, it's just trying to justify one approach or the other to myself and determining what it is that shifts the scale one way or another. I do really like recovery options available via the software raid systems (although I've yet to have a drive fail)... but I know it's not a question of if, but rather when it will happen. My only hesitation is the performance. What I'll probably end up doing is buying what I need and testing unRAID first; see if I can use it for direct recording, and see how the performance works for me. Worse case, I scrap it and use the RAID controller for the hardware implementation of a RAID 5 - I shouldn't be out anything either way.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by drvnbysound

My only hesitation is the performance. What I'll probably end up doing is buying what I need and testing unRAID first; see if I can use it for direct recording, and see how the performance works for me. Worse case, I scrap it and use the RAID controller for the hardware implementation of a RAID 5 - I shouldn't be out anything either way.

I read your previous posts, but I'll admit I still don't fully understand what your requirements are.

If I were you, and I wanted to try to record to software RAID, I would try tRAID over unRAID. You should be able to just drop some drives into the server, set up tRAID, and be good to go. That assumes, however, your current Sage server has space for more drives.

If you need some virtual machines for other stuff, I'd put those on a different box. If I were more adventurous maybe I'd try to put everything in one box, but I'd probably avoid it.

tRAID appears to be under more active development, has the advantage of working under Windows, and seems to offer slightly better write performance than similar unRAID systems.

That being said, I don't use tRAID. I am an unRAID user, and I'm rather disappointed in the limited progress the product has made in the last 3 years. unRAID itself is dependent on third-party add-ons for things that I think are pretty critical (e.g., UPS support), and recently that community has gotten far less active. It's simply not a product I'm willing to recommend anymore. While I'd like to move off unRAID, at this point it would a moderately painful, time consuming, and expensive proposition. unRAID works well enough for now, I'm just not happy or comfortable with it. Maybe if I get more into Plex I'll be inclined to build a beefier server and do the transition then.

unRAID has a free version that supports up to 3 drives (e.g, 2 data, 1 parity). I think tRAID has a trial that you can run for ~14 days.

[drvnbysound]

Originally Posted by reggie14

I read your previous posts, but I'll admit I still don't fully understand what your requirements are.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I think I might have officially hi-jacked this thread for now - Sorry IVB I'll start a new thread of my own soon; I'll post all of my current hardware available and begin to track/update progress.

If I were you, and I wanted to try to record to software RAID, I would try tRAID over unRAID. You should be able to just drop some drives into the server, set up tRAID, and be good to go. That assumes, however, your current Sage server has space for more drives.

Totally understood about the development part... but, I also realize that there isn't much development on STV anymore either, yet I'm also still using it I'm really not all that interested in the on-going development as much as I am what's the most effective and easiest to work with out of the 'box'. I'll definitely be taking a better look into both.

If you need some virtual machines for other stuff, I'd put those on a different box. If I were more adventurous maybe I'd try to put everything in one box, but I'd probably avoid it.

I may be reading this wrong, but it is my intention to put all VMs on a single box; opposed to leaving the stand-alone STV server and a separate server for VMs. My reservation for this is the lack of processing needed for the VMs aside from SageTV. For example, let's assume that I want to run a firewall such as pfSense, a proxy server, and a network tool to monitor inbound and outbound traffic. Those 3 VMs on a quad-core machine w/ 8GB DDR3 RAM will be severely under-utilized; which is what I already have. Thus the thought of putting all VMs on a single box (STV included), and having a separate box for RAID. Understanding that I already have the majority of the hardware, and the current STV box (which is the one I would use for ESXi) is actually already fairly full of HDDs (5).

tRAID appears to be under more active development, has the advantage of working under Windows, and seems to offer slightly better write performance than similar unRAID systems.

I've been a Windows user for a long time... but this is one area where the utilization of Windows as a host OS is a bit uncomforting to me. I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't have problems, but I definitely have concern for stability. When I think of appliances and embedded devices, Windows isn't the first OS that comes to my mind.

That being said, I don't use tRAID. I am an unRAID user, and I'm rather disappointed in the limited progress the product has made in the last 3 years. unRAID itself is dependent on third-party add-ons for things that I think are pretty critical (e.g., UPS support), and recently that community has gotten far less active. It's simply not a product I'm willing to recommend anymore. While I'd like to move off unRAID, at this point it would a moderately painful, time consuming, and expensive proposition. unRAID works well enough for now, I'm just not happy or comfortable with it. Maybe if I get more into Plex I'll be inclined to build a beefier server and do the transition then.

unRAID has a free version that supports up to 3 drives (e.g, 2 data, 1 parity). I think tRAID has a trial that you can run for ~14 days.

This definitely says a lot about unRAID, but I'm probably still going to try it and tRAID both out before making a decision. Regarding the unRAID third-party add-ons... is there anything additional required for recording/archiving setup with STV (other than standard configuration)?

[IVB]

Originally Posted by drvnbysound

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I think I might have officially hi-jacked this thread for now - Sorry IVB I'll start a new thread of my own soon; I'll post all of my current hardware available and begin to track/update progress.

No worries, i'm actually enjoying it.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by drvnbysound

I may be reading this wrong, but it is my intention to put all VMs on a single box; opposed to leaving the stand-alone STV server and a separate server for VMs. My reservation for this is the lack of processing needed for the VMs aside from SageTV. For example, let's assume that I want to run a firewall such as pfSense, a proxy server, and a network tool to monitor inbound and outbound traffic. Those 3 VMs on a quad-core machine w/ 8GB DDR3 RAM will be severely under-utilized; which is what I already have. Thus the thought of putting all VMs on a single box (STV included), and having a separate box for RAID. Understanding that I already have the majority of the hardware, and the current STV box (which is the one I would use for ESXi) is actually already fairly full of HDDs (5).

I think it comes down to what your actual needs are. With everything you've listed, I really don't see a need for any virtualization. To me, it seems you'd be FAR better served simply combining all network needs into an appliance style box running pfsense, and all media tasks into a higher end kit running windows with tRAID.

Like I mentioned earlier, I run pfSense on a 4 year old Atom board. I'm not sure what you are needing in the way of network monitoring, but to me, it makes more sense to just do all of that within pfSense. Let it function as the full fledged network management device it is - no need for virtualization at all with the needs you are listing. It can easily work as a high performance caching proxy, and can do just about all the network monitoring you might desire. In my case, this tiny atom board is FAR more powerful than it needs to be, and runs as an appliance, drawing very little power. No issues with mapping hardware about through various VM's, etc. The only other needs for VM usages (testing rigs, and such) I simply run in VMWare Player on my sagetv server, as they are all part-time usages.

[drvnbysound]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I think it comes down to what your actual needs are. With everything you've listed, I really don't see a need for any virtualization. To me, it seems you'd be FAR better served simply combining all network needs into an appliance style box running pfsense, and all media tasks into a higher end kit running windows with tRAID.

Like I mentioned earlier, I run pfSense on a 4 year old Atom board. I'm not sure what you are needing in the way of network monitoring, but to me, it makes more sense to just do all of that within pfSense. Let it function as the full fledged network management device it is - no need for virtualization at all with the needs you are listing. It can easily work as a high performance caching proxy, and can do just about all the network monitoring you might desire. In my case, this tiny atom board is FAR more powerful than it needs to be, and runs as an appliance, drawing very little power. No issues with mapping hardware about through various VM's, etc. The only other needs for VM usages (testing rigs, and such) I simply run in VMWare Player on my sagetv server, as they are all part-time usages.

I had not even heard of pfSense before this thread. I currently run my firewall rules on a DD-WRT flashed router. However, my current plan for a proxy server is Squid (or similar), and something like Zenoss, Nagios, or Splunk for network monitoring. As mentioned earlier, these are closer to dedicated appliances on their own (hence the VMs) and not necessarily application based (i.e. to be installed on a host OS). Note, that I have access to pre-configured VMs for most of these, so installation will be almost non-existant.

Take your Atom board machine, and put a quad core processor there and a mid-tower case... and you are closer to where I am - I already have this hardware. I feel that running that setup would be pretty silly in terms of wasted processing (it would probably run at 1% because it can't display less )... not to mention the wasted physical space, because that 'networking' machine won't need any additional HDDs either.

I'm working on detailing my hardware list now. Once I get all of that information collected I'll start a new thread, list everything I have already, what my thoughts are for the 'planned' systems, and certainly link it back to this tread as well as it contains a lot of discussion already.

[Fuzzy]

I'd seriously take some time and look at what pfsense is. It is not just a firewall/router. It is a freeBSD build, designed completely around complete network management, with a very good and complete web based interface. It has a plugin architecture to add the features/services you want (Squid3 being one of them). I don't know what monitoring systems it has as pre-configured packages, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't something available. It is till a FreeBSD system, so you can likely install them on it directly, just without a designed package, it might not be neatly integrated into the same web ui as the rest of the pfsense services.

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by drvnbysound

but also mentioning that it's what the large data centers use as well.

Are you a "large data center"? They also have offsite backups, halon fire systems, redundant hardware, and huge generators. Make sure you're targeting your own needs.

I only have a couple of drives that I could use for the raid system and I was really planning to buy all new HDDs to dedicate for this anyway... so the idea of requiring that HDDs be the same isn't that big of a deal for me.

That's what everyone says when they first start out. But, what happens when you find you need more storage space later on? If you buy 4 3TB drives right now and need another TB of space next year, you can't just replace one of the 3TB drives with a 4TB model. You'd need to replace all 4 drives with 4TB models. That can be a daunting--often unexpected--expense. With something like unRAID/tRAID, you could either replace one of the 3TB drives with a 4TB model or simply add a 1TB model.

EDIT: Also, as Fuzzy alluded to, I believe pfSense can do everything you're looking for.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

With a software RAID, you could either replace one of the 3TB drives with a 4TB model or simply add a 1TB model.

To be clear, that's with unRAID/FlexRAID, not software RAID in general. Software RAID-5/6, Z-RAID, etc all don't support aribtrary sized drives or arbitrary additions (some SW RAID may support OCE, but HW RAID supports that too).

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by stanger89

To be clear, that's with unRAID/FlexRAID, not software RAID in general. Software RAID-5/6, Z-RAID, etc all don't support aribtrary sized drives or arbitrary additions (some SW RAID may support OCE, but HW RAID supports that too).

Excellent clarification, stanger! Thanks. Post edited.

[drvnbysound]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

Are you a "large data center"? They also have offsite backups, halon fire systems, redundant hardware, and huge generators. Make sure you're targeting your own needs.

That's what everyone says when they first start out. But, what happens when you find you need more storage space later on? If you buy 4 3TB drives right now and need another TB of space next year, you can't just replace one of the 3TB drives with a 4TB model. You'd need to replace all 4 drives with 4TB models. That can be a daunting--often unexpected--expense. With something like unRAID/tRAID, you could either replace one of the 3TB drives with a 4TB model or simply add a 1TB model.

EDIT: Also, as Fuzzy alluded to, I believe pfSense can do everything you're looking for.

Sure, I understand your point (I'm not a data center)... but why are the data centers using a hardware based system when they could gain all of these advantages from being software based? I'm sure they've done the research. Similarly, why do many enterprise networks utilize Cisco routers, firewalls, etc. instead of using pfSense? If they could save the money, I'm sure they would.

Yes, I will certainly have to draw a line with my own system and make the appropiate choices that meet my individual needs best (cost being a condsideratioin as well)... it's just a little harder to make those decisions when the cost difference is almost nothing. Can I afford a current model, Cisco enterprise-grade router? No. So what's the alternative? Do it in software, or ...

That's the only reason that I made the comment about the data centers and their use of hardware based RAID. The cost of going hardware vs. software is pretty negligable, so then it just comes down to what's better in terms of performance and my needs. Without having done any major research, I'd guess that hardware based RAID is probably better in terms of performance, and that's probably why data centers are using them (an assumption). Do I prefer the ability to view my data on a HDD pulled from a broken unRAID/tRAID system? Yes! Which is more important to me? I'm not sure yet