Second Server Approach


christuf

Recommended Posts

Hi all, and happy New Year!

 

I'm starting to get near fully filling my present server, and thinking about how I tackle adding a second server to my set-up.  I run Plex / Sickbeard / SAB, so would need to be able to run these services on one of the servers, with it being able to see directories on the other server.

 

I've had a dig through the forum, but couldn't find anything directly about this.

 

Very grateful for any thoughts and suggestions.

Link to comment

What version unRAID?

 

Currently 5.0-rc8a - really just a case of if it ain't broke, don't fix it... with a second server, I think I would use 6.x and migrate the Plex / SB / SAB onto that, then upgrade my current server to 6.x.

 

Long story short - old version, but would upgrade when everything is working on the new server.

 

Thank you!

Link to comment

Hi all, and happy New Year!

 

I'm starting to get near fully filling my present server, and thinking about how I tackle adding a second server to my set-up.  I run Plex / Sickbeard / SAB, so would need to be able to run these services on one of the servers, with it being able to see directories on the other server.

 

I've had a dig through the forum, but couldn't find anything directly about this.

 

Very grateful for any thoughts and suggestions.

 

I don't understand the fully filling up of your server. You can always add more hard drives, or upgrade your parity and other drives for increased capacity. If your case does not allow for more drives, upgrade the case.

 

Cannot say enough good things about being on latest 6.x version.

 

 

Link to comment

I don't understand the fully filling up of your server. You can always add more hard drives, or upgrade your parity and other drives for increased capacity. If your case does not allow for more drives, upgrade the case.

 

Cannot say enough good things about being on latest 6.x version.

 

I'm at 23 drives, so not really much incremental capacity to add to that from new drives - true, they are all 2TB drives (back in the day when that was the limit), so guess I could go through and replace them with 3TB to get some extra space, but figure I might as well bite the bullet and just start with a new one.  Is that irrational?

 

Upgrading to 6.x sounds appealing, but the thing just works now - does everything I want.

 

I've also got a few janky things that run - e.g., there's an autoencoder that runs every night that goes through and transcodes any new files down to a specified setting.  I worked pretty extensively with someone on this forum to get it working how I wanted, and don't for the life of me remember how I set it up.

 

I'm not sure how I migrate all my existing Plex / Sickbeard data across with new dockers (if that's what they run in now).

 

Ultimately, I'm just nervous about breaking something in an upgrade for no real benefit (it just sits there and does its job)... but maybe I'm missing out on something I don't realize.

Link to comment

With 23 drives at 2TB you have 46 TB of capacity..

 

If you move 3 drives to 6TB (one beiing parity) you end up with 10TB extra (2 x (6-2) + 1*2 for the old parity). That gives you enough manouvering room to remove 2 drives, making room for adding new 6TB's if you need the space..

 

So there really is no real need to setup a second system.. It will cost a lot more..

Link to comment

 

So there really is no real need to setup a second system.. It will cost a lot more..

 

That's not necessarily true. Your assuming he would have to buy all new hardware including disks. And that also assumes he wants big 6TB or even 8TB drives. I prefer 2TB drives myself and run them in Supermicro 24 bay 846 chassis. Since I prefer the 2TB drives, a fully functioning enterprise grade barebones chassis can be had on fleabay for $175.

 

So assuming he has a spare chassis sitting around and more spare 2TB disks, it won't actually cost more upfront. Yes you will spend slightly more on powering two chassis vs one but in the grand scheme of things that's really a couple bucks a year depending on your cost of power.

 

I actually prefer having my chassis split up rather than one massive server full of 8TB drives. It's all personal preference.

Link to comment

... Ultimately, I'm just nervous about breaking something in an upgrade for no real benefit (it just sits there and does its job)... but maybe I'm missing out on something I don't realize.

 

If you want to be really risk averse, the easiest approach would be to upgrade your current server's parity drive to a larger drive [4TB or larger];  and then simply upgrade your data drives to the same size as you need additional space.    This would require ZERO change to your configuration ... so it's virtually risk-free.

 

On the other hand, there are some very nice improvements in v6, so you may prefer to simply build a new server using v6, and then, as you are more comfortable with it, upgrade your current server to it as well.

 

Link to comment

 

 

So there really is no real need to setup a second system.. It will cost a lot more..

 

That's not necessarily true. Your assuming he would have to buy all new hardware including disks. And that also assumes he wants big 6TB or even 8TB drives. I prefer 2TB drives myself and run them in Supermicro 24 bay 846 chassis. Since I prefer the 2TB drives, a fully functioning enterprise grade barebones chassis can be had on fleabay for $175.

 

So assuming he has a spare chassis sitting around and more spare 2TB disks, it won't actually cost more upfront. Yes you will spend slightly more on powering two chassis vs one but in the grand scheme of things that's really a couple bucks a year depending on your cost of power.

 

I actually prefer having my chassis split up rather than one massive server full of 8TB drives. It's all personal preference.

 

Ehm yes... If the op happens to have everything already it would cost nothing...

 

If the op would happen to have a nasa education and a space shuttle he would be an astronaut :-)

Link to comment

I would be concerned having 23 2T drives. It has been a long time since 2T was the size of choice with unRaid, and several 2T models were downright awful from a longevity perspective. After 4 or 5 years I start to get jittery with my drives. Make sure you are carefully monitoring smart attributes. My fear for you is to have a drive failure and then discover other drives in the array are in poor health, putting recovery at risk.

 

I tend to bring up a new server every 4 or 5 years, with new motherboard, processor, and memory. And several new higher capacity drives. After burn in, I'll migrate data to the new server and even move my newer / higher capacity drives. The old server becomes a backup of my most valuable data. I'd suggest something like this for you. 5T and 8T drives seen to be at the sweet spot price wise. I'd set up a new server with new parity and several larger drives and start migrating from the oldest drives in your array. 2T are pretty small these days (my smallest drives are 3T, with most 4T and 5T), but you can certainly keep using some of them. But I'd make getting under 15 drives a goal to have room to grow and reduce risk of not being able to recover from a failed disk.

 

I prefer to grow an array incrementally, adding drives in pairs at the size that makes sense at the time. Eventually I start upsizing the smallest and oldest ones with new larger drives. This spreads cost over time and yields a range of drive sizes and ages. When I see a good sale, I buy a pair to feed into my strategy. At major updates, I'll phase out all drives below a certain size. This has proven to be a sustainable and relatively economic model for keeping drives relatively young and providing growth over time. YMMV

Link to comment

 

I would be concerned having 23 2T drives.

 

To each their own. Some of my drives has thousands of hours on them and some have just a couple hundred. They are all WD RE4's so I'm not concerned about them dying anytime soon. Mine only contain media so in the event they die, I have full backups.

 

As drives continue to get larger and cheaper I will eventually downsize getting rid of the rack servers entirely and going to a tower chassis. To be honest, the fractal define "S" can easily hold (16) 8TB drives. Assuming one for parity and something smaller as a cache drive, that leaves 120TB of raw storage. That pretty much makes all the rack servers I've seen on this forum obsolete.

 

So my point to that is again, everything is relative. I prefer 24 bay Supermicro chassis with 2TB drives and others prefer to stuff 120TB worth of data in a Fractal tower. Neither one is right or wrong, it's simply user preference.

Link to comment

High quality drives ... whether 2TB, 3TB, 4TB, or whatever ... can last a VERY long time -- especially in an environment where the amount of actual access to the drive is relatively small (like UnRAID).

 

Regardless of what you choose to do, with 20+ drives I'd definitely recommend you upgrade to v6 so you'll be poised to take advantage of the forthcoming dual parity implementation [anticipated in the next release].    This feature will very significantly improve the reliability of the array -- and in general the more drives you have, the more likely it will "save your bacon" during a drive rebuild some day  :)

Link to comment

 

I would be concerned having 23 2T drives.

 

To each their own. Some of my drives has thousands of hours on them and some have just a couple hundred.

 

44,000 hours is about 5 years. Something in the thousands (assuming that means < 10,000) is a just getting broken in. Hundreds happens in few weeks. So it sounds like your array is pretty young.

 

I guess I just assumed someone with a bunch of 2T drives probably had them for a while.

 

They are all WD RE4's so I'm not concerned about them dying anytime soon.

 

You are paying a premium (over $50/T). Buying 4T+ drives at $30/T would mean a lot fewer drives to potentially fail. 5 year warranty is good. But I've had a bunch of drives (WD and Seagate) that had 5 year warranties and died in the 6th year. YMMV

 

Obviously you are where you are. But for others reading this, I think it is a good idea to buy higher capacity drives and keep the drive count and cost down. I see no reason to stick to a monolithic drive size.

 

Mine only contain media so in the event they die, I have full backups.

 

So if you have backups or are able to recreate economically, why buy such premium drives? I am confused.  ???

 

As drives continue to get larger and cheaper I will eventually downsize getting rid of the rack servers entirely and going to a tower chassis. To be honest, the fractal define "S" can easily hold (16) 8TB drives. Assuming one for parity and something smaller as a cache drive, that leaves 120TB of raw storage. That pretty much makes all the rack servers I've seen on this forum obsolete.

 

So my point to that is again, everything is relative. I prefer 24 bay Supermicro chassis with 2TB drives and others prefer to stuff 120TB worth of data in a Fractal tower. Neither one is right or wrong, it's simply user preference.

 

Fair enough. Enjoy your array!

Link to comment

I think my highest drive is somewhere in the 3 year range of use. But yes, some literally have a couple hundred hours on them. I've had these drives for years from my old media servers when 2TB was the biggest you could get reasonable, so pre flood. If I was starting over from scratch I would absolutely go with a tower and 8TB drives and never touch a rack set up. I've just acquired the drives and a ways back. I did recently buy some Supermicro 826 chassis new in the box dirt cheap. I may use them or might sell them, collect my profit and go the tower/8TB route. Undecided if I wanna give up my rack n chassis yet. They are like a part of me now!

Link to comment

High quality drives ... whether 2TB, 3TB, 4TB, or whatever ... can last a VERY long time -- especially in an environment where the amount of actual access to the drive is relatively small (like UnRAID).

 

Good theory but not sure its true. A NY cab can get million miles and last years and years, while grandma's car that only goes to church on Sundays would never approach the miles or longevity. A drive made for enterprise (heavy) use may perform poorly if only used lightly.

 

I remember a college professor talking about early drives (in the days that drive subsystems were washing machine size), were violent machines that could literally walk across the floor with the random accesses. When a new algorithm was invented that allowed the I/O system to reorder drive requests, it produced a much smoother operation. The machines started failing because the lubrication system depended on the use to keep the parts lubricated.

 

Regardless of what you choose to do, with 20+ drives I'd definitely recommend you upgrade to v6 so you'll be poised to take advantage of the forthcoming dual parity implementation [anticipated in the next release].    This feature will very significantly improve the reliability of the array -- and in general the more drives you have, the more likely it will "save your bacon" during a drive rebuild some day  :)

 

Wholeheartedly agree.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.