December 22, 201312 yr I think feature request ought to first and foremost be things that cannot be done by others. E-mail and smart stuff can be crafted by people as plugins. 1) Diagonal parity is #1 for me. ? 2) 64 Bit OS is #2 is this a different type of P+Q parity ? Yes... different, but equivalent.... P+Q requires ALL disks be spinning when writing (all data disks must be read). Diagonal parity does not require all disks be read. For unRAID's users, Diagonal parity is a far better fit and still allows for recovery from two failed disks.
January 5, 201412 yr I think feature request ought to first and foremost be things that cannot be done by others. E-mail and smart stuff can be crafted by people as plugins. 1) Diagonal parity is #1 for me. ? 2) 64 Bit OS is #2 is this a different type of P+Q parity ? Yes... different, but equivalent.... P+Q requires ALL disks be spinning when writing (all data disks must be read). Diagonal parity does not require all disks be read. For unRAID's users, Diagonal parity is a far better fit and still allows for recovery from two failed disks. ^^ was this even mentioned as a possibility by Tom?
January 29, 201412 yr I'd never heard of diagonal RAID prior to this and was really unsure as to what more than one parity drive would buy us. I looked this up on Wikipedia and while I didn't see P+Q listed, diagonal looks VERY interesting to me! Being able to protect against multiple drive failure and not be forced to spin all drives? I want it too!! I don't think this would be a big CPU burden but I worry how it might effect write performance? Would we take another hit writing to two drives? My top three: 1) 64bit with Xen/KVM 2) diagonal parity as an option 3) the option to run a different filesystem than Reiser - likely BTRFS for me P.S. the unRAID section of the non-standard RAID page is pretty bad! It really doesn't even explain what it does! :-( Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
February 4, 201412 yr My vote would be: Built-in email support SMART reporting. For those who say email isn't useful due to it's potentially delayed nature- you realize, you could configure it to send a text message to your phone.....?. And built-in email- would, by all accounts, allow me to finally have PLEX on my machine- which is, to-this-day, still non-functional because it doesn't play well with gcclib....(that's just MY personal crusade) And SMART reporting (while it may be false reassurance) COULD have helped catch things like runaway load cycle counts. For something like a file server, it just seems a good fit.
March 10, 201412 yr feature id like to see. 1. Use of SnapRaid parity is covered with this upto 6 drives and snapshots. Unless unraid can provide snapshots and an extra disc of parity then its falling behind other solutions. Now, the issue with SnapRaid is there isnt a decent server gui on earth for this yet. but Lime tech could use this instead of unraid on their platform and please many people. http://snapraid.sourceforge.net/compare.html
March 10, 201412 yr feature id like to see. 1. Use of SnapRaid parity is covered with this upto 6 drives and snapshots. Unless unraid can provide snapshots and an extra disc of parity then its falling behind other solutions. Now, the issue with SnapRaid is there isnt a decent server gui on earth for this yet. but Lime tech could use this instead of unraid on their platform and please many people. http://snapraid.sourceforge.net/compare.html you do realize that you are promoting a competitor system ?
March 10, 201412 yr feature id like to see. 1. Use of SnapRaid parity is covered with this upto 6 drives and snapshots. Unless unraid can provide snapshots and an extra disc of parity then its falling behind other solutions. Now, the issue with SnapRaid is there isnt a decent server gui on earth for this yet. but Lime tech could use this instead of unraid on their platform and please many people. http://snapraid.sourceforge.net/compare.html you do realize that you are promoting a competitor system ? its not a competitor as flexraid in itself is completely opensource and sharable for one and for the other flexraid has no gui it is totally not adopted because people cant easily use the filesystem easily like unraid. unraid is miles ahead in server functionality but perhaps .. flexraid is actually a viable alternative to run on this platform. why be territorial? if its better and free and still allows for unraid to become flex un raid i.e FUNRAID then i say try it out i know the suggestion is radical but.. if it helps solve some of the parity questions and provides snapshots and some performance improvements why the heck not ?
March 23, 201412 yr feature id like to see. 1. Use of SnapRaid parity is covered with this upto 6 drives and snapshots. Unless unraid can provide snapshots and an extra disc of parity then its falling behind other solutions. Now, the issue with SnapRaid is there isnt a decent server gui on earth for this yet. but Lime tech could use this instead of unraid on their platform and please many people. http://snapraid.sourceforge.net/compare.html That literally is the strangest idea ever. No thank you. -1 Sent from my S4 via Tapatalk
March 24, 201412 yr feature id like to see. 1. Use of SnapRaid parity is covered with this upto 6 drives and snapshots. Unless unraid can provide snapshots and an extra disc of parity then its falling behind other solutions. Now, the issue with SnapRaid is there isnt a decent server gui on earth for this yet. but Lime tech could use this instead of unraid on their platform and please many people. http://snapraid.sourceforge.net/compare.html That literally is the strangest idea ever. No thank you. -1 Sent from my S4 via Tapatalk Have to agree. For the main use cases of unraid I don't understand what you need snapshots for. If snapraid is what you want then that's what you should be using.
March 24, 201412 yr feature id like to see. 1. Use of SnapRaid parity is covered with this upto 6 drives and snapshots. Unless unraid can provide snapshots and an extra disc of parity then its falling behind other solutions. Now, the issue with SnapRaid is there isnt a decent server gui on earth for this yet. but Lime tech could use this instead of unraid on their platform and please many people. http://snapraid.sourceforge.net/compare.html Tom has, in the past, been pretty tolerant of discussing competitor products. But do realize you are "in his house" so to speak, so I would suggest posts such as this one be done delicately and constructively. I think if a competing product has features that unRAID lacks, the features should be discussed and considered as possible enhancement to unRAID. But I have to say Tom is not going to lose any sleep in being compared to SnapRAID. This is a very immature product vs unRAID. It does not provide real-time protection. So if you copy a file to the array it is not protected until you run a lengthy batch process. I wonder what the recovery limitations are. Right after the batch runs you might be well protected, but then if you start doing updates and then a disk fails, I wonder how it reconstructs it if some of the data on which the "parity" was computed has been altered or deleted. Doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I just don't understand how the product is supposed to work. I do see some merit to having file based integrity check on top of unRAID's real time (filesystem level) protection. I would love to see something like this built into unRAID. Something like quickpar that can detect / correct subtle corruption that are theoretically possible. See THIS POST where I outline the issue and offer some options. But no real time protection? Really? That would be a giant step backwards.
March 24, 201412 yr feature id like to see. 1. Use of SnapRaid parity is covered with this upto 6 drives and snapshots. Unless unraid can provide snapshots and an extra disc of parity then its falling behind other solutions. Now, the issue with SnapRaid is there isnt a decent server gui on earth for this yet. but Lime tech could use this instead of unraid on their platform and please many people. http://snapraid.sourceforge.net/compare.html Tom has, in the past, been pretty tolerant of discussing competitor products. But do realize you are "in his house" so to speak, so I would suggest posts such as this one be done delicately and constructively. I think if a competing product has features that unRAID lacks, the features should be discussed and considered as possible enhancement to unRAID. But I have to say Tom is not going to lose any sleep in being compared to SnapRAID. This is a very immature product vs unRAID. It does not provide real-time protection. So if you copy a file to the array it is not protected until you run a lengthy batch process. I wonder what the recovery limitations are. Right after the batch runs you might be well protected, but then if you start doing updates and then a disk fails, I wonder how it reconstructs it if some of the data on which the "parity" was computed has been altered or deleted. Doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I just don't understand how the product is supposed to work. I do see some merit to having file based integrity check on top of unRAID's real time (filesystem level) protection. I would love to see something like this built into unRAID. Something like quickpar that can detect / correct subtle corruption that are theoretically possible. See THIS POST where I outline the issue and offer some options. But no real time protection? Really? That would be a giant step backwards. Recovery is on a file by file basis. So you can recover every FILE that was around at the time of the building of the parity but any files stored after that parity build will be lost on the drive that died. It does allow dual parity so you can loose two drives and still get back your data. But since it isn't real time parity it would only work for those like me - in my opinion - those that write to their arrays in big batches once every few months rather than daily or hourly. I used it(SnapRaid) on Windows when FlexRaid had problems for me. It worked well for the time I used it. But I eventually just bought another unRAID license and setup another server (N54L).
March 24, 201412 yr No matter what other drive pooling / parity product I try I ALWAYS end up coming back to unRAID. It's just the best if you ask me in this space for a media server write once / read many situation. My top two requests. 1. Xen - Ok this is cheating as it's now included 2. Dual Parity What's this diagonal parity business, couldn't see an explanation of it anywhere when I was looking...
March 24, 201412 yr Tom mentioned that dual parity may require all disks to be spinning. Is it worth that much to people? Tom also mentioned that Netapp holds a patent for "diagonal parity".
March 25, 201412 yr Tom mentioned that dual parity may require all disks to be spinning. Is it worth that much to people? Tom also mentioned that Netapp holds a patent for "diagonal parity". For me, probably not. Since I have unraid running in a VM I'd probably just set up another array in a VM with my second license key that I'm not using rather than having to deal with all disks spinning up every time a write needs to be done.
March 25, 201412 yr Tom mentioned that dual parity may require all disks to be spinning. Is it worth that much to people? Tom also mentioned that Netapp holds a patent for "diagonal parity". I assume all disks spinning only when writing? In any case, I really don't expect to go beyond the Plus license, so one parity is enough for me. I would rather have notifications, and plugin and vm management. Does that count as three?
March 25, 201412 yr Tom mentioned that dual parity may require all disks to be spinning. Is it worth that much to people? Tom also mentioned that Netapp holds a patent for "diagonal parity". I assume all disks spinning only when writing? that is correct.
March 25, 201412 yr Would dual parity work in the sense of just mirroring the parity drive? Maybe I could do this already with a mirrored RAID configuration.
March 25, 201412 yr Would dual parity work in the sense of just mirroring the parity drive? Maybe I could do this already with a mirrored RAID configuration. Dual Parity should work in a way that you could recover from 2 data disks failing simulataneously. It is not a simple copy of the existing parity.
March 25, 201412 yr Would dual parity work in the sense of just mirroring the parity drive? Maybe I could do this already with a mirrored RAID configuration. Usually when people talk about dual parity, they are talking about two drives that work together to allow a recovery if 2 array drives fail, not a mirroring of the parity drive. "Dual parity" is a misnomer because it requires higher math than simple parity to pull that off. Mirroring of parity is pretty useless by itself. It would only protect you if parity + 1 other drive were to fail, and in an array with lots of drives there is no reason to think parity will be more likely than any other to fail. You'd be better off mirroring your most important array disk. I run a raid controller in my array and have 2 3T drives attached. It creates a 4T RAID0 parity and a 1T RAID1 partition (takes 2T to create 1T usable space). This RAID1 partition holds my most critical data. It is separately mounted in my go file, not a part of the UnRaid array.
March 25, 201412 yr I run a raid controller in my array and have 2 3T drives attached. It creates a 4T RAID0 parity and a 1T RAID1 partition (takes 2T to create 1T usable space). This RAID1 partition holds my most critical data. It is separately mounted in my go file, not a part of the UnRaid array. How's the speed on the RAID0 4TB drive working for you? I remember my old array had this and it wasn't all that much increased speed until I started really pounding the server, then I would realize smoother throughput due to the effect of caching and RAID0. I imagine 2 3TB 7200 RPM drives would provide outstanding speed on the areca. FWIW, that hybrid array with RAID1 saved my butt big time after having half the server underwater.
March 25, 201412 yr It had been very fast and smooth, but when I upped it from 3T to 4T I think I changed the block size from 64 to 128 (didn't record what it was before but definitely set it to 128). I also went from beta 11 to 5.0.5. Writes have slowed down a bit and not smooth. Going back to b11 didn't make much of a difference. I'm going to rebuild the parity drive with 64 and see if it returns to faster speed. Glad the RAID1 saved you!
March 25, 201412 yr It had been very fast and smooth, but when I upped it from 3T to 4T I think I changed the block size from 64 to 128 (didn't record what it was before but definitely set it to 128). I also went from beta 11 to 5.0.5. Writes have slowed down a bit and not smooth. Going back to b11 didn't make much of a difference. I'm going to rebuild the parity drive with 64 and see if it returns to faster speed. Glad the RAID1 saved you! See this thread, maybe it can help. http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=29009.330
March 25, 201412 yr Thanks! Had not seen that! Will definitely play with it after changing my block size.
April 14, 201412 yr Multiple Arrays on the same system. (Sure this was mentioned, eg one parity + 10 disks x2) Use of a different filesystem
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.