Beck38

Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Beck38

  1. Still don't see any answers to my 2 questions; guess I'll check back after the weekend and see if there any.
  2. Only cheaper if, again, you're using 'used' components. A good basic RAID box (5-6 drive) is about $800, and that is around the same cost as a good multi-PCIe (several x4/x8 slots) motherboard, multi-core cpu, ram, power supply, and case cost. Start adding multiport SATA cards in those PCIe slots, and the cost rapidly exceeds it. BTW, that 'target' crossover point (by my calculation, with drive costs) is around $3K. Below that point, the NAS boxes are cheaper per/TB, above it, unRAID continues it's cost curve downward. I've read a lot of the threads here on the unRAID protection scheme (having the single parity drive) and would say that if the system has an Achilles heal, that's it. A 'standard' RAID array using stripping with distributed (or multiple) parity (RAID5 and above), is a better system overall (with modern drives) than the unRAID, but that's perhaps just my opinion (but echoed by many here that would like the option for multiple/distributed parity added to the unRAID system). On the 'plus' side is the ability, matched only by the other Linux variants and the Drobo systems, to utilize a 'mix' of different drives and such. But, drive slots, even as plentiful as in the unRAID, are still a limited resource that needs the maximum utilization. So having a 'matched' drive set is just not that big of a deal when 2TB drives are <$180 ea. (!). Again, it all makes more sense if one is hacking together a collection of used parts, drives, and the like. It's been my experience that at the end of the day, any savings one realizes from such an approach is fairly rapidly lost by time, effort, and money replacing bad or variable components. But hey, that's me. The biggest plus of unRAID, that of being able to throw together a collection of odd drives, though, is rapidly disappearing. On might get an 'inner glow' about getting some use out of some drives one originally spent a dear amount of cash on in years past, but those ports aren't infinite (or of no/low cost) either, and it's a choice as to utilizing them or replacing them with newer/low-cost variants. Slice of my 'cost' calculations: W/2TB drives: NAS 'appliance' - 16TB RAID 5 (10 drives) = $2840 - $177.50/TB UnRAID - 16TB data drives + Parity/Drive (9 drives) - Base unit: $1400, + 9 Drives ($1620) = $3000 - $187.50/TB That's the 'crossover' point, or thereabouts. The 'appliance' cost curve is 'flat' at that point, more storage costs exactly the same, whereas unRAID continues to fall towards around $150/TB at the maximum supported drives (but of course is more expensive at the smaller end of the scale, IF one builds out the unRAID to support more drives/ports at the start, but the differential with more drive slots/sata ports is really minimal). Oh well, the part that worries me the most, again, is potential failure, and the grinding away of rebuilding a drive in the array. That's why the (perhaps) excessive attention to the parity drive in the unRAID, whereas with a RIAD5 array, that grinding and thrashing is distributed among all the drives in the system, and the bottleneck is distributed rather than relying on a single drive/port.
  3. First, initial build will be 3 drives (parity + 2data), simply because the 2TB drive costs are VERY soft (they've dropped almost 50% just in the last 3-4 months with new models), and the cost/GB curve v. the 1.5TB drives has just about been reached or exceeded (2TB would have to reach $160), but as I don't have an 'old box of drives' to use, and I'm not about to 'raid' my 2 current RAID5 arrays for drives, it's all 'new' stuff. If anyone has run a cost curve on the total unRAID system, you'd find that unRAID v. widely available 'stand-alone' NAS commercial systems (RAID5/6), that unRAID doesn't begin to achieve true cost benefit until the number of data drives exceed ~10. Of course, this is with all new components, I don't have a box of old drives, motherboards or multi-port sata cards, to bash together something, and don't intend on spending loads of time troubleshooting the problems that older components would introduce. The problems that new ones would be enough to handle... As far as 'build as you go', all modern RAID boxes now support the same flexibility (in some cases even more) that unRAID does, the only limitation is the number of drives supported in a single box/array, and there are easy (and built-in) ways around that, to 'stack' systems until one is blue in the face. That's why the first thing I did was run a cost curve to try and get a grip on what the initial v. out years cost would look like. I'm somewhat amused by daniel.boone's comment about d/l'ing the internet In the last five years my desktop systems have all gone from <500GB to between 4-8TB each. Since the introduction of perpendicular recording (and widespread adoption of SATA) a few years ago, it appears that drive size has reached a plateau at the 2TB level (cost is the target now), and we are about to see a new generation of iinterfaces in the next round (6GB SATA v. USB3). But SATA I/II will be around for a good while yet. The old adage that one can't ever have enough storage space is many times more true today than ever, with streaming 50GB HD movies (and the storage space that eats up) on the table. Unless we're all sitting here 5 years from now scrapping together the pennies to buy a loaf of bread, 100+TB home digital storage systems will be 'the next new thing'. That a fair percentage of that is already here, means it's time to get cracking.
  4. For a good month now, I've been trying to specify (and get built) an unRAID box from LimeTech; the biggest 'hurdle' has been the hard drives, particularly as many manufacturers have recently come out with low cost higher capacity, plus 'green' types, during this period. I originally thought, and still feel, that a top-line 2TB as the parity drive is the way to go, irrespective of cost (7200rpm/64MB cache). Low cost data drives 2TB as well, as many are now in the market. Just recently (like, the past week), LimeTech has added the Seagate Barracuda LP ST32000542AS to their small buy list, so that is 'good to go', but in the email back and forth, neither any Seagate (Barracuda) or WD (Black) drives (for the parity) were sprinkled with 'holy water' by LimeTech ('too new' although they've been out for a year or more). The recent release, and cost per GB, of 2TB drives by both Seagate and WD, brought up another question; with a 16 drive system, that means 15x2TB, or 30TB total of data storage, and can unRAID handle that? This question comes up as I believe (or I've been told by Linux 'experts'), that the Linux core can only address 20GB of HD space (I know ext3 can address only 16TB...). I do see that the filesystem used on the 'per disc' part of unRAID is ReiserFS. which does limit the size of each disc to 16TB (a restriction that 'may' present a problem in around what, 10 years?), but haven't tripped across the total system size as of yet. So, two big questions need to be answered, without the emailing back and forth (which has proven to be a bit much): 1. Why no 'approved' HD list on this site? Every competitor has large lists, from every manufacturer, of 'supported' drives, including user lists beyond those of the recent major's (usually older types, precisely the ones unRAID would be targeted at). 2. What is the maximum total data drive space the system will support? (with the new 2TB drives now flooding the market at really good prices....). 15 data drive = 30TB. Any ideas are welcome. I've put this off for too long already, and have had to buy several drives to overpopulate my desktops to hold my 'junk'.
  5. "Click of Death" just about a bazillion threads scattered all over the internet on this. Exactly what causes it, or if specific plants (India, Thailand, etc.) is producing this, or what percentage of the drives are affected (of course, you may be 50-100% depending on how many one has), but it seems to be around 20% or so (my 'rule of thumb'). Luckily, the problem appears quite early in the drives life, not x months down the road (at least not yet).
  6. For BD, ISO won't work on the A-110 or C-200. At all. May work with C-200 later on. I advise waiting a week or two until the first "proper" firmware release for the C-200. If you want to play BDs, I would not get the A-110. The C-200 is waaaaay better. So, wait until the new firmware is out, and see if it meets your expectations. The C-200 is a great BD player even with the crappy beta firmware. You 'are' talking about s/w programmers, right? Two weeks? Try 2 months to 2 years. I've been using an A110 to play BD rips for a couple months now (since I got the machine) with absolutely no problems. BUT, my network is 'non-blocking' (fully giga-switch) although the A110 of course is 100Mb only, of course, and they are being streamed not from an unRAID box (yet), but from a standalone. The highest bit-rate I've seen on the PCH site is somewhere around 50-60Mb/s on one specific BR disc (can't remember which one, but it was a concert disc if I remember correctly). When the C200 gets a little more mature, I'll get one. But there's a lot of 'polishing' that needs to be done just on the s/w for the previous models, so just when it will start looking 'good' is a question.
  7. Since I'm deep into the process of specifying a new system, and have been jumping kinda back and forth between Seagate and WD, I am 'up to date' on aqll the different models (have the spec sheets right in front of me). First off, both Seagate and WD have 'green' type drives in every model range (WD is 'green' and 'black', Seagate is 'LP' and newest 'XP'), and both have brand new 2TB 7200rpm/64MB cache as well as 'green' types with much lower rpm/cache. All reminds me of 'overchoice' ala 'Future Shock'. I actually bought a WD 1TB 'green' drive to put in a pc (X2 AMD CPU), and it's indeed VERY slow, but usable for the task given it. The 1.5TB Seagate (Barracuda 7200.11) is so much faster it spins ones head. Best SATA drive in existence right this moment: Seagate Barracuda XT.