The Perfect Home Server 2016

[garycase]

... the only missing piece being real-time parity

 

That is, of course, a MAJOR missing piece 

 

 

... Heck, unRAID even supports a cache drive to make up for it's mediocre write performance penalty induced due to real-time parity. Are those files protected until parity is calculated via the mover script? Nope!

 

Actually, yes, the files in the cache are fault tolerant as long as you're using a cache pool -- which was a major enhancement in the UnRAID cache capabilities with v6

 

[BRiT]

Actually, yes, the files in the cache are fault tolerant as long as you're using a cache pool -- which was a major enhancement in the UnRAID cache capabilities with v6

 

It is my understanding thats only if its configured as a nonRaid0 pool, which is the default to provide fault tolerance, but the user could switch it so it doesn't have any fault tolerance.

[garycase]

... though for large mainly static datasets, real-time parity isn't really that important.

 

I don't disagree with this ... although it's important that the parity generation is AUTOMATIC, as a casual user may very well not remember to update parity.    e.g. if UnRAID didn't have an automatic "Mover" and a user had to manually "move" data from the cache, I suspect many would forget to do this until they had an error message about a full cache.

 

[garycase]

Actually, yes, the files in the cache are fault tolerant as long as you're using a cache pool -- which was a major enhancement in the UnRAID cache capabilities with v6

 

It is my understanding thats only if its configured as a nonRaid0 pool, which is the default to provide fault tolerance, but the user could switch it so it doesn't have any fault tolerance.

 

True => a user can certainly set things up to not take advantage of the intended features 

[BRiT]

Actually, yes, the files in the cache are fault tolerant as long as you're using a cache pool -- which was a major enhancement in the UnRAID cache capabilities with v6

 

It is my understanding thats only if its configured as a nonRaid0 pool, which is the default to provide fault tolerance, but the user could switch it so it doesn't have any fault tolerance.

 

True => a user can certainly set things up to not take advantage of the intended features 

 

Like a Gaming System Setup, which seems to be the main focus of unRaid now?

[garycase]

... Like a Gaming System Setup, which seems to be the main focus of unRaid now?

 

It does seem like the focus of UnRAID has digressed well away from what many of us use it for.    Not sure how a NAS has evolved into a gaming box ... but there certainly seems to be a lot of movement in that direction 

[Squid]

... Like a Gaming System Setup, which seems to be the main focus of unRaid now?

 

It does seem like the focus of UnRAID has digressed well away from what many of us use it for.    Not sure how a NAS has evolved into a gaming box ... but there certainly seems to be a lot of movement in that direction 

Disagree.  unRaid is evolving into a virtualization platform.  Gaming is merely one aspect of that, but everyone reaps the benefits...

 

And fundamentally no different than the directions other NAS platforms are taking in being able to run say XBMC or docker out of the box

 

[ashman70]

If UnRaid is developing into a virtualization platform then there are quite a few features, such as snapshots, virtual networking and disk provisioning to name a few, that need to be added. Do you know if some or any of these are coming in 6.2?

[InlineRanger]

It's not about the money. It's about being free and open. UnRAID is closed source - not that that is neccessarily a bad thing but I am a convert to the FOSS community. I think it's truly amazing and want to remove proprietary software from my life wherever I can.

 

Free as in cost is good but I'll pay for good software.

 

Free as in beer is better.

 

I agree 100% and appreciate your effort in creating this guide, but I'd like to add my perspective as a Linux novice of why I plan on going with UnRAID despite it's closed nature. The content of my server vastly exceeds the cost of an UnRAID license and hardware, if nothing else than in time spent. Your solution appears more complex, which eats time and reduces stability. The fear of losing a lot of data -- quickly -- is too high.

 

If someone packaged a minimal Debian install, MergerFS and Docker into a small, flash-drive sized package sporting a simple GUI, I'd switch in a heartbeat... even after paying for an UnRAID license. I personally have no need for virtual machines or real-time parity since my server is dedicated towards media storage. Once HDD's get big enough, I'll switch to a two drive RAID-1 setup because complexity sucks.

 

I'm not a latest and greatest sort of person. Office programs and OS's largely stopped innovating over a decade ago, but the hamster wheel is still turning. The UnRAID wheel is worth running on at the moment because despite the fear of a flash drive dying and Tom going AWOL, it gets the job done with the least amount of complexity.

[Squid]

If UnRaid is developing into a virtualization platform then there are quite a few features, such as snapshots, virtual networking and disk provisioning to name a few, that need to be added. Do you know if some or any of these are coming in 6.2?

jonp has announced that at least snapshots are on the roadmap.  Who knows whether they make it or not.  And I think (could be wrong) that LT is shooting for virtualization for the masses, rather than for the enterprise market like vmWare targets which (at least during the growing stages) necessitates a smaller feature set.

 

But my point was that calling unRaid a gaming platform would be like calling Windows or OSX a gaming platform simply because you can run a game on Windows / Mac.  Gaming is a niche market, but there is nothing specific about it that doesn't apply to any usage case as a whole.

 

 

[dalben]

Gaming and Porn have for a Long time driven technology to new levels.

[Helmonder]

I was using vmware before and was skeptic wrt unraids ambitions towards virtualisation. I took the plunge out of fun and have found that their implementation has proven to be rocksolid, easy, and eating far less resources then my esxi machine.. I am now reusing my esxi box as a secundary unraid system for backup purposes..

 

As said multiple times: to each his or her own, what I do not understand however is the debate on license cost... Compared to the money you have to spend on hardware the price for limetech is really very small.. Also only a very small part on unraid is "closed" (the part that calculates the real time parity, the rest is open source).. Also the amount of community effort and participation is very high and imho higher then a lot of other fully pd products.. Perhaps more importantly; the community effort has been high for YEARS.. No "flavour of the wek enthousiasm" ..

[garycase]

Definitely agree r.e. the cost of a license => when you consider the cost of a good set of hardware; the cost of the disks; and for that matter the cost of all the data that you're storing on this fault-tolerant system; the cost of a license is definitely trivial.

 

[dastral]

Well i'm still hesitating between  Unraid & Flexraid & Snapraid...

 

The thing is my "Media Server" is turned on about once every two weeks.

To copy 20-30GB of TV Series and then fill up my 32GB MicroSD to keep me busy while commuting.

 

Has anyone been using Unraid like this ?

 

I just want to be able to turn on the server, copy my files, get some files, so a 1-2-3 hour "quick check that everything is fine" then power off the server....

And 2-3 weeks later rince & repeat.

 

 

 

[Helmonder]

That would work.. No problem.. Wonder however how you collect your tv series.. Do you use another system for that ?

[interwebtech]

... but the hamster wheel is still turning.

 

Hey don't bash the hamster wheel. It pays the bills around at my house. LOL

[jbrodriguez]

For me ...

 

unRAID > other solutions, because:

 

1) Real time parity protection: I don't use a cache pool, I can live with network performance, while my mind is at ease

2) Mix and match disk sizes: Inevitably, disks get bigger, so I get two bigger sized disk (one for parity, one for data) and keep growing my array.

3) Grow your disk pool economically, compared to other (ZFS I'm looking at your vdevs! But I have to say, ZFS has some awesome use cases and is awesome itself !)

4) Ease of use: even if personally I find preclear to be a PITA, after that you're in the clear. I tried snapraid once and I had to keep messing with some block size, which never worked for me.

5) The Forum: very knowledgeable people willing to help guys out. In some other forums, I found sarcastic comments and basically go f... yourself if you don't know how this is supposed to work

 

I've had a couple motherboards die on me, never lost any data with unRAID ... I'll quote Hernandito .. "someone would have to pry my unRAID from my cold dead hands..." 

[BetaQuasi]

Quantifying time spent and the value of said time is always interesting in these scenarios.  For me, the cost of an unRAID license, along with the simplicity of spinning up the server, was more than justifiable.  I am more and more time poor these days, so couldn't dedicate the time required to spin up a MergerFS/Snapraid box even if I wanted to.

 

It does sound like a great concept, but as someone else stated - unless it was wrapped up in a fixed installer with a nice GUI etc (I'd even pay for it!), I just don't have the time to go down that path.

[outsider]

...  I am more and more time poor these days, so couldn't dedicate the time required to spin up a MergerFS/Snapraid box even if I wanted to.

+1

Exactly the boat I'm in.

[vl1969]

I agree 100% and appreciate your effort in creating this guide, but I'd like to add my perspective as a Linux novice of why I plan on going with UnRAID despite it's closed nature. The content of my server vastly exceeds the cost of an UnRAID license and hardware, if nothing else than in time spent. Your solution appears more complex, which eats time and reduces stability. The fear of losing a lot of data -- quickly -- is too high.

 

If someone packaged a minimal Debian install, MergerFS and Docker into a small, flash-drive sized package sporting a simple GUI, I'd switch in a heartbeat... even after paying for an UnRAID license. I personally have no need for virtual machines or real-time parity since my server is dedicated towards media storage. Once HDD's get big enough, I'll switch to a two drive RAID-1 setup because complexity sucks.

 

I'm not a latest and greatest sort of person. Office programs and OS's largely stopped innovating over a decade ago, but the hamster wheel is still turning. The UnRAID wheel is worth running on at the moment because despite the fear of a flash drive dying and Tom going AWOL, it gets the job done with the least amount of complexity.

 

 

hi InlineRanger. not sure if this thread is still active but want to put in my 2C.

 

I have run small unRaid  setup for 3 years and can say love it and all.

but it has a few limitations that lead me to abandon the setup. for the last 2+ years I have been searching for a decent easy to use replacement. let me tell you not so easy to do.

 

but I think I just found a very good solution that will work for me thanks to IronicBadger.

 

as for :

If someone packaged a minimal Debian install, MergerFS and Docker into a small, flash-drive sized package sporting a simple GUI, I'd switch in a heartbeat...

 

well I have found setup which is close to what you ask in this quote.

it is not  a small debian setup on a flash stick. you do need a normal system drive BUT  a clean setup of Open Media Vault + snapRaid plugin + MergeFS via (uninonfilesystem plugin) + docker plugin or Virtualbox plugin or both

 

gives you all that and a simple WebUI.

 

what you loose is a real-time protection a la unRaid or similar.  and a system on a stick type setup.

 

what you gain is a real  FOSS OS (Debian) with a nice usable WebUI

I even think it is possible to load up a webmin on the setup to supplement other task you need CLI for but see no point for it as OMV does a lot in the GUI.

you even have a nice GUI to setup snapraid and MergeFS and SAMBA shares and NFS shares no need for CLI.

 

setup a backup of the system drive to external location and you can recover very easy.

 

I have been searching for this kind of setup for the last 2+ years and do belive I have found it finally.  I do not do docker. have no taste for it yet. but I do VMs.

I have build out a trial config in VM and love it.

can't wait to try this on my real hardware.

 

 

 

[gfjardim]

Also only a very small part on unraid is "closed" (the part that calculates the real time parity, the rest is open source)..

 

The only closed source binaries are emhttp (manager interface) and shfs (the JBOD-like fuser filesystem that is used to mount the /mnt/user directory). The md(RAID) module is opensource.

[mr-hexen]

And the MD driver. No?

[gfjardim]

And the MD driver. No?

 

Nope, see the code at /usr/src/linux-*/drivers/md/md.c