how many unraid servers on a network

[mani]

Just curious...!! I currently have one unRAID server with capability of 15 drives. Is it possible to add another unRAID server on same network?  How will the netowrk see second array?

 

Thanks

mani

[SSD]

There should be no limit to the number of arrays on a network.  One MACHINE can only host one array.  But multiple machines can each host a separate array.  As long as you use a unique hostname (default "Tower" would have to be changes for all but one of the arrays) and each receives a separate IP address, you can grow to your heart's content.

[Joe L.]

Just curious...!! I currently have one unRAID server with capability of 15 drives. Is it possible to add another unRAID server on same network?  How will the netowrk see second array?

 

Thanks

mani

You can have as many as your network switch can handle (using dhcp, home routers typically can only hand out 255 addresses, keeping 1 for themselves) 

All you need to do is give each unRaid server different names (Tower1, Tower2, Tower2 ... or Music, Movies, Pictures, name them after your kids, pets) and, of course, different IP addresses.

 

Joe L.

[NLS]

Joe one small detail.

 

Routers can give as many addresses as the used subnet class allows.

Supposing you use a class C network LAN (typical but not less typical than class A, 10.x.y.z) you will use 192.168.X.Y.

But this Y does not give 255 unique addresses (for hosts). 0 and 255 are used for other purposes and of course at least one is used by the router.

So this specific DHCP can hand out 253 addresses.

 

As I said 192.168.0.0 is as typical as 10.0.0.0 and there you can have more than 65000 hosts.

 

 

[Joe L.]

NLS,

 

I forgot about address 0 and 255...

 

My router's config is shown below: 

The netmask is set to 255.255.255.0 and from what seems on the screen, its dhcp only able to give out addresses from 002 through 254.

 

Looks like I can still add a few more unRaid servers on my LAN since it I don't yet have 253 devices on the LAN in my home.

 

Reminder to self... look into tcp/ip addressable dustbuster and lawnmower... plenty of ports available 

 

[WeeboTech]

Reminder to self... look into tcp/ip addressable dustbuster and lawnmower... plenty of ports available

 

Don't forget the network addressable webcams!!!

[fotd]

NLS,

 

I forgot about address 0 and 255...

 

My router's config is shown below: 

The netmask is set to 255.255.255.0 and from what seems on the screen, its dhcp only able to give out addresses from 002 through 254.

 

Looks like I can still add a few more unRaid servers on my LAN since it I don't yet have 253 devices on the LAN in my home.

 

Reminder to self... look into tcp/ip addressable dustbuster and lawnmower... plenty of ports available 

 

It's your subnet mask that only gives your 254 addresses.  If you where to use a variable address like 255.255.254.0, then you would go from 2.1 to 3.254.  However, I think a lot of the little home routers do have some built in limitations, due to their cached size.  I'm i remember right on a typical linsys wrt54g was about 150 or so (I sort of remember this, I could be way off).  In any case on a typical router it's basically the sky is the limit.

[Joe L.]

I understand how the subnet mask works.  It won't help me, but others may have more advanced equipment than I do.

 

My router is more limiting than that...

 

If I attempt to modify the netmask, I get this:

 

So... it basically as I said... I'm limited to 253 other IP addresses if I continue to use this "Belkin" router.

 

Perhaps I should cancel the order of the set of 8 matched IP-Enabled coat hangers 

 

Joe L.

[NLS]

 

It's your subnet mask that only gives your 254 addresses.  If you where to use a variable address like 255.255.254.0, then you would go from 2.1 to 3.254.  However, I think a lot of the little home routers do have some built in limitations, due to their cached size.  I'm i remember right on a typical linsys wrt54g was about 150 or so (I sort of remember this, I could be way off).  In any case on a typical router it's basically the sky is the limit.

 

you are half correct

 

without being strict with regulations you could maybe do that

 

if you follow the proper RFCs the subnet mask you gave is not valid for this network (as it is normally a class C network)

 

for about the same reasons, you shouldn't use 255.255.0.0 with 192.168.X.Y (although if you are not strict with regulations you have 65534 valid hosts that ARE inside LAN "aerospace"

 

also (going further off topic but I am sure is interesting for whoever follows) many people don't realize that for example a class A network (Internet address) is NOT all addresses with first byte 1-254 (eg. 250.X.Y.Z), since in fact the first OCTET defines this class so the first number is 1-126 (and 128-191 for class B and 192-223 class C etc.)

 

 

[fotd]

 

you are half correct

 

without being strict with regulations you could maybe do that

 

if you follow the proper RFCs the subnet mask you gave is not valid for this network (as it is normally a class C network)

 

for about the same reasons, you shouldn't use 255.255.0.0 with 192.168.X.Y (although if you are not strict with regulations you have 65534 valid hosts that ARE inside LAN "aerospace"

 

also (going further off topic but I am sure is interesting for whoever follows) many people don't realize that for example a class A network (Internet address) is NOT all addresses with first byte 1-254 (eg. 250.X.Y.Z), since in fact the first OCTET defines this class so the first number is 1-126 (and 128-191 for class B and 192-223 class C etc.)

 

 

Ya you're right, I always forget about the B/C designation.  I think it comes from years of references to "Class C" networks, which is what the majority of people tend to call their Class B network.  Since the common practice is to take your class b and break it into individual C's or subnet it down, most people get the C stuck in their head.  In any case I'm just glad I haven't had to deal with the stuff in years, I was never very good at math .

 

 

[NLS]

I like to refresh those and play it smart with my tech subordinates.

 

It has happened to me that a guy with an ok University degree (related to IT) came for interview and didn't know much more basic stuff than this.

After that I created a small test, everybody takes.

 

I'd say we moved away from the topic, but the topic fulfilled its purpose anyway: It is clear that there is no real reason why you cannot have MANY unRAID servers in your LAN, as long as you have the appropriate number of IPs and you are careful with the traffic (but let's not move further to prioritizing the traffic, marking QoSes, VLANs etc. hehehe).

 

 

[Joe L.]

I like to refresh those and play it smart with my tech subordinates.

 

It has happened to me that a guy with an ok University degree (related to IT) came for interview and didn't know much more basic stuff than this.

After that I created a small test, everybody takes.

Back in the mid 80s, when I interviewed prospective Unix developers I'd ask simple questions too:

What letters of the alphabet are not valid options to the "ls" command? 

I'd say we moved away from the topic, but the topic fulfilled its purpose anyway: It is clear that there is no real reason why you cannot have MANY unRAID servers in your LAN, as long as you have the appropriate number of IPs and you are careful with the traffic (but let's not move further to prioritizing the traffic, marking QoSes, VLANs etc. hehehe).

My poor little $29 (after rebate,on sale) Belkin wireless router/switch does not know how to do "quality-of-service" (or many other acronyms either)  You clearly are talking about a router costing $39 or more...

 

To get back to the original topic, on my poor router, I can only have about 230 or so more unRaid servers on my home LAN.

 

Joe L.

PS... the correct answer (at least back then) to my interview question was:

Berkeley or System-5?

The wrong answer was... "ls command? what's that used for?"

[NLS]

hahahaha good one

 

 

[limetech]

Along these lines... been experimenting with a feature that lets you see shares from one unRAID server in the name space of another unRAID server.  For example, suppose you have this:

 

//tower1/Videos/a bunch of files

//tower2/Vidoes/another bunch of files

 

Set up a special config in Tower3 to see:

 

//tower3/Videos/aggregate of files from tower1, tower2, and tower3

 

Kinda slow... but maybe useful.

[Berg]

Along these lines... been experimenting with a feature that lets you see shares from one unRAID server in the name space of another unRAID server.  For example, suppose you have this:

 

//tower1/Videos/a bunch of files

//tower2/Vidoes/another bunch of files

 

Set up a special config in Tower3 to see:

 

//tower3/Videos/aggregate of files from tower1, tower2, and tower3

 

Kinda slow... but maybe useful.

 

Interesting. Not high on my list of wishes, but it might be a nice addition.

[josetann]

To the original question:  According to Tom, you're limited only by how many Pro licenses you can afford for all those 16-drive servers.  If you can afford multiple 16-drive servers, I'd say you have nothing to worry about (and now with the cache drive, that'd be 17-drive servers).

 

 

Reminder to self... look into tcp/ip addressable dustbuster and lawnmower... plenty of ports available   

 

 

I don't think they make networked dustbusters.  Not sure if my lawnmower can be networked...I do remember being emailed about a firmware update for it though.  I'll have to ask if there's any kind of wifi upgrade for it (btw nope, not a Robomower).