Apologies if it has been raised already...

 

I'd personally like to be able to split the drives supported into two arrays. 16 (20 potentially) HDDs is a lot for only single disk protection IMO.

 

I'd like to be able to run two eight (or ten) disk arrays rather than one massive array.

Would potentially give better fault tolerance.   

 

As we know CPU cycles aren't an issue, RAM is cheap, sata controllers likewise...

 

Most new motherboards support enough sata ports and PCI-e slots to make this a via option IMO.

You may be interested in some thoughts and discussion here, keep in mind it is rather dated though.  Multiple arrays have come up in a few other discussions too, but is always an interesting topic.

Thanks for the pointer Rob, I did find this post but it seemed a lot more elaborate that want I would like. I'd "simply" like to see the ability to create 2 or more unRAID arrays on the same box.

 

I say "simply" because what looks easy on the outside often requires a major re-architecture to achieve. However if it is possible I think it would be a great selling point, I for one would rather have two or three six drive arrays on a single box in preference to a single twelve or eighteen drive array.

 

I know it means "loosing" a single drive for each array but it is a small cost compared to my data.

 

Would also allow for things like mirrored arrays to be created with an rsync job. 

I tend to ponder if having multiple segmented parity arrays would be better, or adding another RAID6 type parity drive would be better.

 

On one hand, segmented arrays allows breaking up data storage easier (but this could be achieved by multiple machines)

ON the other hand a RAID6 type parity drive helps us to deal with two drive failures no matter how large the array is.

Well for what it's worth, I am currently running 2 unRAID arrays (free version) in the same box. That's a total of 6 drives.

Using a boot manager to select between 2 unRAID installations.

Since it is the free version, I don't have to bother about the USB key at this point.

 

I am now trying to construct a simple manual switch to control which drives are powered up so that only the drives needed for each unRAID array is powered up.

I have some important data that is mirrored in both arrays to give me double the protection. Other than that, I will power up whichever array is needed. Though if I can have both arrays up at the same time in the same box would be great.

 

I intend to migrate one of the arrays to another box once I get more drives and will also purchase 2 unRAID Plus/Pro licences. Hopefully by that time, unRAID 5.0 is ready.. 

 

I tend to ponder if having multiple segmented parity arrays would be better, or adding another RAID6 type parity drive would be better.

 

On one hand, segmented arrays allows breaking up data storage easier (but this could be achieved by multiple machines)

ON the other hand a RAID6 type parity drive helps us to deal with two drive failures no matter how large the array is.

 

With the likelihood of hitting a read error while rebuilding a failed drive getting larger I would prefer to see some sort of double parity solution (such as RAID6).

 

Regards,

 

Stephen

Either would work for me, as long as it doesnt stripe like tradtional raid. Apart from the write performance I really like the unRaid methodology.

 

Took me a while to get my head around the more spindles is slower, im accustomed to thinking the opposite. Now I have some new mb's to play with, I hope I can regain some performance.