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

[wsume99]

I wouldn't just assume that existing users won't leave because 3TB support is not available. Lack of 3TB support could also force existing users of the basic version who are looking to expand their array and want to use 3TB drives to seek an alternative solution with 3TB support.

 

And it's not that a customer or user cannot use a 3TB drive - they just can only use 2/3rds of it right now.

 

What is most disappointing to me is that the roadmap seems to be so out of date that it is basically useless at this point.  I have no idea when 3TB support will be added.  3TB drives have fallen in price enough that people are seriously considering getting them even though they can't use all the space now.  To me that is very telling and it indicates that Limetech needs to get out in front of this issue.  Just imagine what it'll be like in 2-3 months, you'll probably have 3TB drives in the $100-110 range.

[PeterB]

And it's not that a customer or user cannot use a 3TB drive - they just can only use 2/3rds of it right now.

 

Hear, hear!

 

If anyone really has a server full with 2TB drives, and urgently needs more space, then I feel sorry for them - but is anyone really in this position?

 

If people are facing a buying decision to add a drive, or upgrade a smaller drive then no problem - buy a 3TB and use 2/3rds of it (actually, slightly more - almost 3/4) for the time being.

 

Even upgrading a 2TB to 3TB will gain you 10% more space.

[SSD]

I think there is a lot of frustration that 5.0 betas have been around since last August and we still don't have a production 5.0 release.  Beta 6a was showing progress and all of a sudden it stopped.  People just want a 5.0 stable, over and above all else.  No more distractions.

 

But 3T support is important for unRAID and especially to attract new users, many of whom will be wanting to start an array with 3 3T drives.  And those are the people putting money in Tom's pocket, so they do get some degree of special attention.  If it is not urgent today, it will be urgent soon.  It is, IMO, the best chance to get Tom to re-engage sooner rather that later, add 3T drive support, and drive 5.0 to release.

 

It's not like, if Tom doesn't do the 3T drive support, 5.0 release gets finished sooner.  Its likely the opposite.  I don't think people understand that.

[Wimpie]

If anyone really has a server full with 2TB drives, and urgently needs more space, then I feel sorry for them - but is anyone really in this position?

 

I am in this position. I need a new server (case, mb, the lot, ...), or support for bigger drivers (preferred by me).

 

Tom originaly planned to support >2.2 Tb drives in version 5.2.  I asked (and gave reasons why) to support big drives earlier.

 

As I see it, support for 3Tb drives is now more important then ever:

 

- Are cheaper than 2Tb drives (remember, each drive needs a SATA port, uses electricity, needs a case/hotswap bay. It adds up, you just can't compare between HD prices only)

- Is for NEW users a big selling point (if I build a new array now, I want to do it with 3Tb drives)

- Allows existing users to upgrade their array more cost effective. I don't have so much money that I can buy a 2Tb drive to replace a 1 Tb drive, and buy a few months later a 3Tb drive to replace the new 2Tb drive.

 

 

The other 5.0 improvements are for me not so crucial. I can wait for them. But 3Tb support should come as soon as possible...

 

 

[toby9999]

I've seen this sort of problem before with other products...

 

I believe the underlying issue here is that (mainly) one person (Tom) is doing all the development on Unraid as opposed to there being a whole team working on it.

 

And in addition to Unraid development, many other things in life get in the way.

 

I completely understand, but on the flip-side, this is a commercial product, and IMHO, Tom needs to address this and hire some more developers to help him.

 

This would result in much shorter development/testing cycles and polls such as this might not be needed (ie you'll get 3TB support *and* lots of other features, in a reasonable timeframe).

 

Just my 2 cents worth.

[BRiT]

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.

 

Before anything else, we need a stable 5.0 release with the partition clobbering fixed.

[bubbaQ]

I am in this position. I need a new server (case, mb, the lot, ...), or support for bigger drivers (preferred by me).

 

You can go ahead and buy and use 3TB drives now, and UNRAID will use them as 2TB drives.... when the >2TB support comes out, then you can expand them to their full size.

[Heretic]

interesting enough of all those features the one missing seems to be an extra parity drive especially for those with 20 data drives it will give a bit more protection against drive failure

[squirrellydw]

interesting enough of all those features the one missing seems to be an extra parity drive especially for those with 20 data drives it will give a bit more protection against drive failure

 

I want that also but I can wait, first release 5.0 than add this other stuff.

[electroglyph]

I did just buy unRAID the other day.  However, if I had known beforehand it didn't support 3TB drives I certainly would NOT have purchased.  Just my 2c.  I am still happy to support the project but 3TB support will soon become an issue with prospective buyers if it isn't added.  TBH I never would've guessed that an OS released in 2011 wouldn't support >2TB.  In the computer software world when you face such fundamental limitations and you still haven't overcome said limitations when the hardware is out in the wild, you've dropped the ball.  I know that sounds harsh but it's the truth.

[bubbaQ]

You realize that even if unRAID had > 2TB support today, it is not guaranteed to be reliable on many controllers and motherboards.  Do you know for a fact that your motherboard and controller support it?  Do you want to risk your data to that unknown?  I don't.  Do you want to be doing support for for an application like unRAID with 3TB support, and then field angry users complaining they lost data to unRAID, when the loss is really the fault of the controller of mobo?

 

If you want to live on the bleeding edge, you can install 3TB drives, and use them to 2TB capacity for now, and then expand them later.

 

FWIW, unRAID is an application and an MD driver, and not an OS.... the OS is Linux.

[electroglyph]

Sorry, but that's a bullshit excuse for not having GPT support.  

 

If everyone thought that way there would be no progress.

 

If >2TB was already in place we'd have a nice compatibility list going (assuming there isn't one already around here)

[Josh]

I'm fully populated in my 4224 and am a month away from needing to build a new machine.  Im trying to hold out until 3tb support. I'd like to be done with 2tb drives because in the long run they will have to be replaced with something bigger and I'd like to avoid that.  Start with 3's and then move into 4's is my goal, doesn't look like that will happen though

[bubbaQ]

Sorry, but that's a bullshit excuse for not having GPT support.  

 

If everyone thought that way there would be no progress.

 

If >2TB was already in place we'd have a nice compatibility list going (assuming there isn't one already around here)

 

Most users don't even know what a "compatibility list" is or how to get to it.  They simply expect appliances to work when they turn them on, like water and power, and don't want to hear about any issues otherwise.

 

If you read my post fully, I referred to the support burden of a feature that while you may have coded it correctly, the field implementation will fail for many people due to other issues out of your control such as spotty hardware support.

 

I have written several commercial software packages.  One in particular had a lot of users asking for support for a particular feature.  However, since this software worked with third-party services, there were compatibility issues beyond my control.  I added that compatibility, with very plain advisories (some would say obnoxious popup warnings, but that's just opinions) of the limits of the feature due to bugs in the third-party services.  Despite that, I was inundated with "bug" reports and complaints that *my* program had bugs because it gave odd results in some instances --- the exact same instances that the warning dialogs advised them would give odd results.  There were more irate users due to the supposed "bugs" that ever requested the new feature in the first place.  So I removed the feature to eliminate the support headaches.

 

Don't forget that a storage appliance must be risk-adverse and constantly favor reliability over features.  I would never add 3TB support unless and until the guaranteed compatible hardware had deep penetration into the market.  unRIAD is not some free iPhone app that if it throws up on itself, a user just goes "meh, no big deal."  People get seriously angry when their data is lost.... even if they lost it due to their own incompetence.

[lionelhutz]

I would never add 3TB support unless and until the guaranteed compatible hardware had deep penetration into the market.

 

What does 'deep penetration into the market mean? Do you really believe 3T drive support should wait for 2 or 3 years until something like 75% or 90% of the older hardware that might not be compatible is gone?

 

This needs to go to beta and then everyone will know what support issues there are, instead of doing nothing more than guessing and doomsdaying.

[prostuff1]

This needs to go to beta and then everyone will know what support issues there are,

Haha, and then you get ALL the support emails and requests with customers complaining about why it does not work.  I am not saying you are wrong, just stating a fact. 

 

My feeling is that 3TB drive support should probably be looked at now and come to fruition in the next 6 months or so.

 

instead of doing nothing more than guessing and doomsdaying.

the world is going to end in 2012 anyway, so I don't know why we bother discussing all this 

[SSD]

I noticed, when typing a response in this thread, that the number of votes for the last option went from 4 to 20 in less than an hour, with no posts by anyone during that time and no votes for any other options.  I with that people would voice their opinions and reasons in the forum and not just "vote".  (I also hope nothing fishy is going on  )

 

There are some scare tactics regarding 3T drives and corruption in here that I do not agree with.  unRAID's core parity maintaining logic will not change with the 3T drives, any more than it changed with 1T, 1.5T, or 2T drives.  Once the partition is created and sized so that unRAID knows about large partitions, it will calculate parity as it always has.  If there are bugs, they will be found and fixed, but since I arrived here in early 2008, there have been NO bugs in this fundamental code.  I think it is solid and undergoes little if any changes from version to version.

 

The 3T drives themselves have been on the market for 6 months or more, and have "deep penetration" (sounds like a porn move ).  I can promise that they have been tested MUCH more thoroughly than we will ever test them with unRAID.  Not to dismiss the need for testing, but the current state of 3T drives is more than mature enough to support unRAID.

 

Also, we saw with 5.0b6a that it does not take a new drive size to cause a nasty bug (I'm referring to the MBR overwriting bug).  ALL new versions need to be tested, and by a diverse group, to get to stability.  3T support is no exception. 

 

As is usual with these types of threads, of which there have been many, the one missing participant is the one we need the most.  Fixing the MBR bug and implementing 3T support is a week's work (IMO).  We just need Tom at the grindstone for that time, and then we can find something else to argue about.

[ohlwiler]

I noticed, when typing a response in this thread, that the number of votes for the last option went from 4 to 20 in less than an hour, with no posts by anyone during that time and no votes for any other options.  I with that people would voice their opinions and reasons in the forum and not just "vote".

 

One of those was mine. I have maxed out my server with 2T. drives. I project I will need more space in about eight months. If 3T. support is not here by then, then I will just use my test server with idle 1T. drives to tide me over. I want 3T. support, but I don't want it rushed, and I know that Tom will do the right thing.

[bubbaQ]

The 3T drives themselves have been on the market for 6 months or more, and have "deep penetration" (sounds like a porn move ). 

 

Drives, yes.  Controllers... no, at least not confirmed to work reliably.

[WeeboTech]

I noticed, when typing a response in this thread, that the number of votes for the last option went from 4 to 20 in less than an hour, with no posts by anyone during that time and no votes for any other options.  I with that people would voice their opinions and reasons in the forum and not just "vote".  (I also hope nothing fishy is going on  )

 

...

 

As is usual with these types of threads, of which there have been many, the one missing participant is the one we need the most.  Fixing the MBR bug and implementing 3T support is a week's work (IMO).  We just need Tom at the grindstone for that time, and then we can find something else to argue about.

 

One of those votes was mine. I would prefer a stable release.

 

Then a beta that only adds 3T support so that one issue does not cloud or disrupt the other.

If the 3TB drives can be cut down to 2TB temporarily, that's a decent stopgap to save the investment money.

 

In my mind the reason is more about stability, and isolation then anything.

That was the reason for my vote and one of the jumps.

 

Frankly, Tom's input would be the sealer of the deal in any way. He may feel it not much of a burden to add in 3T support.

 

 

[wsume99]

I want 3T. support, but I don't want it rushed, and I know that Tom will do the right thing.

In my mind all of the options include the inherent assumption that 5.0 - whatever options it includes - MUST be a stable release.  I also have confidence that Tom will do the right thing. The intent here should be to voice the community's priorties when it comes to new features and let Tom figure out if/how he wants to incorporate that into his roadmap. I do find it a little ironic that you stated that you want 3TB support but voted for the option that says that 3TB support is not a priority to you.

[BRiT]

There are some scare tactics regarding 3T drives and corruption in here that I do not agree with.  unRAID's core parity maintaining logic will not change with the 3T drives, any more than it changed with 1T, 1.5T, or 2T drives.  Once the partition is created and sized so that unRAID knows about large partitions, it will calculate parity as it always has.  If there are bugs, they will be found and fixed, but since I arrived here in early 2008, there have been NO bugs in this fundamental code.  I think it is solid and undergoes little if any changes from version to version.

 

To be very shallow and pedantic about this, that's not exactly true...

 

When you support GPT partitions, the partition information also exists at the end of the drive. While it does not change the way the partition parity is accomplished, it does completely change the way unRAID has to create and maintain partition information including the mathematics in how it determines the partition size. I'm not certain what would occur if any GPT drive were to get hit with HPA from the motherboard bios.

 

[queeg]

I'm fully populated in my 4224 and am a month away from needing to build a new machine.  Im trying to hold out until 3tb support. I'd like to be done with 2tb drives because in the long run they will have to be replaced with something bigger and I'd like to avoid that.  Start with 3's and then move into 4's is my goal, doesn't look like that will happen though

 

Please tell me you've posted in pimp my rig thread.  We always need more impressive shots.  Any yours sounds like it's got bragging rights!

[ohlwiler]

I do find it a little ironic that you stated that you want 3TB support but voted for the option that says that 3TB support is not a priority to you.

 

Actually my number one priority is a second parity drive and it has been for 3 years. 3T. support will come long before that and I'm okay with that. It's just a poll, if Hitachi hadn't dropped their prices on 3T. drives, it wouldn't even be an issue. I think it caught all of us off guard (in a good way).

[boof]

I voted yes for 3TB in any shape or form as soon as possible.

 

I also said this in a development thread back in November and had a number of people jump down my throat and dismiss it.

 

I note those same people are still dismissing 3TB support for various reasons.

 

In the meantime I'm looking at more and more 3TB disks coming to market, price points becoming keener, disk vendors merging and so reducing the number of options we have even further when buying new disks, new users coming on here with rigs kitted out with 3TB disks and being confused as to why they're not working, competitors supporting 3TB drives with no issues and on a personal level I'm looking at my own capacity and wanting to upgrade but slotting in a 2TB disk would be a false economy in terms of cost.

 

Upgrading with a 3TB disk on the grounds that unraid will probably support it in the future in some version maybe isn't very appealing.

 

So :

 

- Those people against 3TB support and waiting for some sort of critical mass - what point does that arrive? When do you swing the other way?

 

- Does this poll have any influence over limetechs decisions?

 

As I stated in a post in November at the least it would be nice to know when 3TB is coming or what the plans are. It seems to have cropped up in the roadmap but then the roadmap is already out of date so where are we now?

 

I was concerned in November and I'm even more concerned now that unraid is starting to lag behind. This was a 'future' position in November but it's very much a current thing right now. And taken to the extreme we could be left in the not too distant future buying disks that either :

 

- Are 2TB as that's all unraid supports. But they're not as available and / or the pricing makes no sense anymore compared to 3TB

 

- Are 3TB disks but only using 2.2T due to unraid limitations and having an awful lot of storage sitting about being unused with some vague hope that at some point we might be able to go through the pain of expanding them one by one when unraid catches up.

 

At that point a lot of people are going to start looking at alternatives.

 

I'm sure this won't be a popular post but heads in sand over 3TB isn't the way forward. The drives are here now, have been here for a while, controller support seems to be pretty good and fundamentally the drives aren't going away. I'm also seeing them trickle into our enterprise pricing options so we've also got over the traditional consumer -> enterprise lag in the models.

 

Unraid needs to catch up with the market and it needs to do it as quickly as possible for everyones sake. IMO this needs to be an utmost priority for development. There is no point having all the other whizzy features in 5.x if the hardware support is now lagging by an entire generation.

 

I do not want to get to the point where I'm looking at a page of new drives to buy and most of them are 3TB models all at keen prices. And there are only a couple of legacy 2TB drives kicking about to buy as the market has moved onto 3TB or greater drives. All whilst unraid still has no support. I don't think this is very far away and, given it's inevitable to happen and we can historically put a reasonable estimate of timeframe on it, this is currently going to happen long before unraid has any support given we don't know otherwise.

 

I also do not want to still be having this discussion about unraid supporting 3TB drives when 4TB drives start hitting market. And they're roadmapped for 2011 so the clocks ticking...