unRAID 6.9.x and 2x8Tb Archive... The choice


10 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

Hello,
I am looking to switch my archive server to unRAID and I would like to have the same level of security for my data. Currently I have two 8TB volumes in RAID1, so 4 disks:
Audio: 2x 8Tb drives RAID1
and
Video: 2x 8Tb drives RAID1
A long time ago, at the time of 80GB disks I used RAID 5, RAID1 is now more secure for a large volume.
I am therefore looking for how to have a level of security for my data identical to RAID1.
How to configure on unRAID.

I thought to put the 3 disks of 8TB and put the 4th in parity, but if two disks break, obviously there is really irrecoverable loss of data?

On unRAID I would like to have two disk arrays just like I have on my current Linux (Linux SME / Koozali) not to name it.

And what type of fs to choose ? XFS ? BTRFS ?

I specify that it will be an archive server only (Samba).
Thanks for your future suggestions.

Link to post
9 hours ago, PicPoc said:

I thought to put the 3 disks of 8TB and put the 4th in parity, but if two disks break, obviously there is really irrecoverable loss of data?

You can have two data disks with dual parity, though IMHO it's kind of overkill for just to disks, and it still doesn't replace backups.

Link to post

Unraid IS NOT RAID. You can have dual parity as mentioned, but it isn't RAID1. Each data disk is independent. Parity allows a missing disk to be rebuilt by reading parity plus all other disks. Dual parity allows 2 missing disks to be recovered simultaneously, but with so few disks it is unlikely that 2 disks would truly fail. Often the cause of problems are not the disks themselves but the connections. As mentioned, no matter how many parity, or even if you use some other RAID system instead of Unraid, parity isn't a substitute for backups.

Link to post
8 minutes ago, trurl said:

Unraid IS NOT RAID. You can have dual parity as mentioned, but it isn't RAID1. Each data disk is independent. Parity allows a missing disk to be rebuilt by reading parity plus all other disks. Dual parity allows 2 missing disks to be recovered simultaneously, but with so few disks it is unlikely that 2 disks would truly fail. Often the cause of problems are not the disks themselves but the connections. As mentioned, no matter how many parity, or even if you use some other RAID system instead of Unraid, parity isn't a substitute for backups.

 

Thanks for your response.
Yep, I am well aware : that's the name "unRAID". :)
Backup, I know : Archive IS a Backup. A real Backup IS copy, RAID1 is copy.
My Backup server (Archive) is not full 24/7, just ON when I want to read a file.

 

Why not a second pool SAME AS THE FIRST pool in the future ?

 

8 hours ago, JorgeB said:

Not directly. You could have the standard array with parity1 and data1, which acts like a RAID1 as long as there are no other data disks, then define a pool with BTRFS RAID1.


This is what I was able to understand, because at the beginning, one would have thought that a second pool would work like the first: but this is not the case.
That's good dommege because unRAID would have been perfect to make an archive server :(
(So a working server and an archive server alongside)

 

Link to post
1 minute ago, PicPoc said:

A real Backup IS copy, RAID1 is copy.

Unfortunately that is not the case. A real backup allows you to recover older versions of files after the current version has been deleted or corrupted. RAID1 will delete or corrupt both copies simultaneously, so not a backup. Redundancy yes, backup no.

Link to post

No, no, you're confusing, or I misspoke: My "Archive" server IS a copy and RAID1 STILL allows data security. In addition it is not always on, the disks do not spin when the server is off ... :)
But let's not go back over and over to this bogus problem, if I lose my data that's my problem. I have already had several solutions like RAID5 and RAID1 for over 20 years.
So you are telling me that it is not possible to do the equivalent of RAID1? Twice two identical disks to have identical data copied in equivalent to RAID1?
That's a shame.
Why not implement this pseudo RAID1 in the pools?
In my tests I did the equivalent of RAID1 with a 500GB disk + a 500GB disk in parity in XFS format. I was able to read the data from each in another linux. It is the equivalent of RAID1 with a simple and efficient solution. Why not have done the same for the second pool? What is the reason for this limitation?

Link to post
1 minute ago, PicPoc said:

Why not implement this pseudo RAID1 in the pools?

It's implemented already, that's what I tried to say.

27 minutes ago, jonathanm said:

Not directly. You could have the standard array with parity1 and data1, which acts like a RAID1 as long as there are no other data disks, then define a pool with BTRFS RAID1.

 

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.