Which is more important to you, unRAID 5.0 features or 3TB drive support?

[Rajahal]

This poll is in response to this thread.  Credit goes to wsume99 for the idea.

 

The hallmark feature of unRAID 5.0 is AFP, which will allow for greater stability and speed when unRAID is used in a Mac environment.  Another big one is improved security, such as Active Directory (AD), which will be primarily useful in a business environment, and improved share security which will benefit everyone.  Most important to me personally is the new plug-in architecture, which will allow advanced users to create unRAID plug-ins and add ons with greater ease and flexibility.  Last but not least is the new GUI, which lays things out a bit differently, adds some user-friendliness, and generally just looks a lot better.  You can read more about the 5.0 features in the 5.0 development forums, and on the roadmap (which is a bit outdated).

 

3 TB drive support pretty much speaks for itself.  The difficult part of it is that it means unRAID has to start supporting GPT partitions instead of the classic MBR style.

 

With 3 TB drive prices dropping rapidly, the question becomes how the community feels that LimeTech should be spending their time.  Should they focus getting 3 TB drive support out in a stable release as soon as possible (likely a 4.8 release), or should they stay the course and focus on 3 TB drive support AFTER the rest of the 5.0 features are stable (likely a 5.1 release)?

 

I actually haven't made up my mind on this issue yet, so I'm not going to vote right away.  Take your time, think about it, and vote wisely.  Though if you do make a rash decision, you can change your vote

[kizer]

Personally I want a ROCK Solid OS before I want to use something that can often cured by adding another drive to your machine. Of course for those with 20 disks machines or those that see the value in buying a larger disk because they are cheaper I do feel your pain.

 

I just truly belive that if what we are running isn't rock solid then we are just asking for curruption and loss of files not that a 3TB would add that, but ........... I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. Well maybe I would, but nobody here.

 

In the end I voted for 5.0 features

[abs0lut.zer0]

 

I just truly belive that if what we are running isn't rock solid then we are just asking for curruption and loss of files. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. Well maybe I would, but nobody here.

 

In the end I voted for 5.0 features

 

+1

[Blofeld]

That's a great idea for a poll...but aren't votes/elections supposed to be secret? I'm not telling.. 

 

Seriously, it's a very very tough one. I voted 3TB support, but it was a very close call.

In an ideal world, we would have it both ways, but as it is, we can get excited and rejoice when either of them come true, right?

Win/Win.

[SSD]

I am not agreeing with the options. The next beta (according to the roadmap) will have 3T drive support. My vote would be to release the next 5.0 beta with bug fixes and 3T support. Put it on the fast track and make it an official 5.0 release. Move AD support and the few other features currently slated for the next beta into 5.1.

 

I am 100% against another 4.x.

 

Do not link 4.x and 3T support - the two don't belong together.

[kizer]

I agree with you bjp999. 4.7 seems to be running smooth the way it should. Other than any possible bug fixes that version as far as any DEV should be complete and all focus should be on 5x.

[dgaschk]

I was a big supporter of focusing on v5 development. But 3TB drives are here and more are going to appear quickly. I'd like to be able to market 3TB support in unRAID and provide a stable release with 3TB support to clients. I can't deploy beta software to clients.

 

Macs allow auto-mounting of NFS and it is fast and stable with v4.7. I'd like to see AFP support but the forum indicates there are still issues to be worked out. NFS works perfectly with Macs so AFP is less of a priority.

 

I voted for 3TB support. Adding 3TB support and releasing a v4.8 will expand unRAIDs marketable capabilities much faster than v5 development.

[graywolf]

I am not agreeing with the options. The next beta (according to the roadmap) will have 3T drive support. My vote would be to release the next 5.0 beta with bug fixes and 3T support. Put it on the fast track and make it an official 5.0 release. Move AD support and the few other features currently slated for the next beta into 5.1.

 

I am 100% against another 4.x.

 

Do not link 4.x and 3T support - the two don't belong together.

 

I voted for 3 TB but really don't care if it is 4.x or 5.x as long as it is stable.

 

I like bjp's idea. Take the stable 5.x components + 3 TB support and fast track it to a Stable Release.

Those features which are currently troublesome, push to the next beta.

 

 

 

[Rajahal]

I too like bjp999's idea (by the way, you are welcome to edit the poll...).

 

There seem to be a few 5.0 features that are already stable.  The Web GUI, for one...I don't know of any outstanding issues there.  If 5.0 stable were released with nothing more than the upgraded Web GUI and 3 TB support I think many people would be very happy with that.

[queeg]

I voted for the 5.0 stay the course.  But I'm a bit conflicted so I'll qualify my vote.  Here are my main thoughts:

 

1. It took a long time to build momentum for the 5.0 push.  Lots of folks have invested unpaid time in the design and committed to testing it and are testing it.  It should be a tough call to push them aside.

 

2. Branching code into two builds, one with short tracking to get 3TB out and one for the longer 5.0 goals isn't just a push of a button.  It would distract the developer and adds risk to both branches of code for error to creep in.  Double testing in the community, double fixes and beta pushes.  

 

3. Testing itself.  Who is willing to step up and commit to doing the rigorous dedicated testing?  The last thing we need is an under-tested launch of 3TB and have it corrupt data.  Without serious testing you might as well just call it a beta and say the community is testing it.  The moment that anyone thinks they see corruption the whole world comes to a full stop with embroiled forum discussions.  It's asking a lot of Limetech right now, so be ready to give back.

 

 

It seems like those really pushing for 3TB have a business interest in the matter.  It's not the cost of the drives, surely they will continue to fall so there's no lost opportunity in waiting a while.  I don't see anyone saying they can't add another drive and without 3TB they will have to postpone moving data onto their server.  Yes, there are always going to be people in mid-purchase decisions who are deciding what their buying strategy should be. 

 

Do I want 3TB?  Yes. 

Would I buy them now?  Yes. 

Would it help me in business sense? Yes. 

Is it going to hurt me to wait? ....... Wants versus Needs... I surely want it but don't really NEED it.

Will I benefit more from the 5.0 or the 3TB?.......I'm benefiting from 5.0 already because it's generating interest and excitment.  I'm benefiting from 3TB already for the same reason.  Wow, I'm really conflicted.  I want both.

[Blofeld]

I voted for the 5.0 stay the course.  But I'm a bit conflicted so I'll qualify my vote.  Here are my main thoughts:

 

1. It took a long time to build momentum for the 5.0 push.  Lots of folks have invested unpaid time in the design and committed to testing it and are testing it.  It should be a tough call to push them aside.

 

2. Branching code into two builds, one with short tracking to get 3TB out and one for the longer 5.0 goals isn't just a push of a button.  It would distract the developer and adds risk to both branches of code for error to creep in.  Double testing in the community, double fixes and beta pushes. 

 

3. Testing itself.  Who is willing to step up and commit to doing the rigorous dedicated testing?  The last thing we need is an under-tested launch of 3TB and have it corrupt data.  Without serious testing you might as well just call it a beta and say the community is testing it.  The moment that anyone thinks they see corruption the whole world comes to a full stop with embroiled forum discussions.  It's asking a lot of Limetech right now, so be ready to give back.

 

You're so right... it's probably faster and easier to keep trucking along on the set path.

[Whaler_99]

I voted for the 5 features -> I would like to see that stabalized and work out the bugs in that before we move onto 3TB support. In the end I think more users will take advantage of the nice new GUI, the plug-in architecture, AFP and shares, security improvements, etc. then really start throwing 3TB disks at their boxes. I still have a bunch of 500GB I can upgrade to 2TB before I need to worry about that.

I still have a 4.7 system that cannot upgrade to 5b6a because of MBR: Unknown errors. I would like to see all that sorted out "tout de suite". 

 

Shawn

[lionelhutz]

Sort out any main bugs in the current 5.0 beta and add 3T drive support and get a release. I don't really see much complaining other than the drive recognition error so get that sorted. The plug-in manager doesn't need to be in 5.0.

 

Peter

 

[SSD]

--- PLEASE REVOTE - THE OPTIONS HAVE BEEN CHNAGED BASED ON DISCUSSION ---

[BRiT]

I think people are overlooking possible technical issues in getting > 2.2TB drive support in older unRAID 4.x releases.

 

Since the unRAID 4.7 series is still based on a rather archaic Slackware 12.2 from 2009 it uses significantly older Linux packages for tools. Newer packages and kernels may be required for suitable and stable support for > 2.2TB drives.

 

The unRAID 5.x series is based on a newer Slackware 13.1 from 2010 so it uses more recent Linux packages for tools. This has significantly higher chances for suitable and stable support for > 2.2TB drives.

 

If even newer packages are required than what's in unRAID 5.0b6a then it would be completely wasted efforts in trying to shoehorn it into the unRAID 4.x series.

[lionelhutz]

3 x 3T threads in the last 2 days, not including this one? One user had the system built before realizing they weren't supported. Simple fact is that this trend will just continue and it is needed fairly fast, not in maybe possibly 6 months to a year.

 

The answer's not always just expand with 2T drives because the array isn't at 20 data drives yet. Lots of users won't have the hardware to support 21 or 22 drives and would rather go with fewer 3T drives.

 

Ultimately, it's up to Limetech to decide but this thread is a good way to at least get the thoughts of a small group of users.

 

I also fully support not developing 4.7 to include 3T support so that leaves 1 option in my mind. 5.0 needs a feature freeze except for 3T support so it can get released.

 

Peter

 

[SSD]

Personally I want a ROCK Solid OS before I want to use something that can often cured by adding another drive to your machine. Of course for those with 20 disks machines or those that see the value in buying a larger disk because they are cheaper I do feel your pain.

 

I just truly belive that if what we are running isn't rock solid then we are just asking for curruption and loss of files not that a 3TB would add that, but ........... I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. Well maybe I would, but nobody here.

 

In the end I voted for 5.0 features

 

If no one is willing to move off of a "Rock SOLID" version, we're done.  Tom has an excellent track record of producing versions that protect users' data.  But there have been bugs, even one or two that have caused data loss.  But in order to move forward, betas need to come out, people need to test them (initially people with test arrays, but eventually a wider audience), Tom needs to fix the bugs, people need to test the bug fixes, and on until a version is ready for release.  Eventually a version reaches "rock solid" status.  That's how it works.

 

If we say "I don't want to make an enhancement becuase the version that comes out won't be as solid as the version I'm on", we are stuck.  Why did we ever move from DOS, anyway?

[toby9999]

I agree with Quegg's posting ... 3TB is very important to me for business reasons, but staying on track with 5.x and not diverting resources to 4.x is also very important so as not to lose momentum.

[dgaschk]

I want a stable version that supports 3TB disks ASAP. I want to be able to market 3TB support and deploy it to clients. I don't care if it's a feature frozen 5.0 or a 4.8. I think that a 4.8 version would be faster than 5.0, but only Tom knows. People have already seen 3TB drives recognized as 3TB in an unRAID server, so I don't think the Slackware version is a limitation; unRaid just needs to add support for GUID.

[bubbaQ]

I'd like a stable 5.0 release version, that fixes the clobbering of partition tables with multiple partitions (i.e. cache drive) before anything else.

[Rajahal]

I think people are overlooking possible technical issues in getting > 2.2TB drive support in older unRAID 4.x releases.

 

Since the unRAID 4.7 series is still based on a rather archaic Slackware 12.2 from 2009 it uses significantly older Linux packages for tools. Newer packages and kernels may be required for suitable and stable support for > 2.2TB drives.

 

The unRAID 5.x series is based on a newer Slackware 13.1 from 2010 so it uses more recent Linux packages for tools. This has significantly higher chances for suitable and stable support for > 2.2TB drives.

 

If even newer packages are required than what's in unRAID 5.0b6a then it would be completely wasted efforts in trying to shoehorn it into the unRAID 4.x series.

 

This is a good point, and one I had not considered.  I think with the new wording in the poll that the majority of users are going to choose option 1, as it offers 3 TB support in the shortest amount of time without sacrificing the momentum of the 5.0 development.

[kizer]

@bjp999

 

You are completely right with your statement that if we do not test and move on away from a Rock Solid build then we are going no where. I will completely own up to that one and stop using the phrase "Rock Solid" as my excuse for wanting to hold off on 3TB for features/Stability over 3TB.

 

Tom does indeed have an excellent track record for protecting user data. I'll crawl in my hole for a while and wait for the dirt.

[queeg]

Looking at the new wording in the poll questions I get that the intent is to encourage voters to vote for 3TB and don't really match up with the title of the post anymore.

 

How about:

Do you want support for 3TB now even if it means stopping other 5.0 development for an indefinite period of time?

[Yorgo]

Sort out any main bugs in the current 5.0 beta and add 3T drive support and get a release. I don't really see much complaining other than the drive recognition error so get that sorted. The plug-in manager doesn't need to be in 5.0.

 

Peter

 

 

+1. I'm sticking with 4.7 until a stable, non-beta 5.0 is released.  Maybe i'm paranoid or just simply not confident in my very limited linux skills, but I have a ton of time invested in building my content library and I'm most concerned with data integrity.  Perhaps in the future I'll build a test system, but for now . . . (And yes, I voted).

[Jon]

Can't say 3TB support matters much to me.  Price point sucks in comparison to the 2TB.  I would much rather see a more stable 5.0 release earlier with 3TB drives added in later.

 

Ultimately, I'm quite happy with 4.7, so I won't frown at any end decision