February 18, 200719 yr Let's say I have three 250 GB drives, and use a 500 GB drive as a parity drive. Will unRaid basically make 250 GB of space on the parity drive unavailable to me, at least until I upgrade my other drives to bigger ones?
February 18, 200719 yr Let's say I have three 250 GB drives, and use a 500 GB drive as a parity drive. Will unRaid basically make 250 GB of space on the parity drive unavailable to me, at least until I upgrade my other drives to bigger ones? Exactly correct.
February 18, 200719 yr Author Thanks for the reply. Is it possible to partition the drive in half, and have unRaid treat it as two 250 GB drives? My problem is that I have several ~250 GB drives and this one new 500 GB drive. It seems like the new drive must be left out in order to get best utilize my space.
February 18, 200719 yr Thanks for the reply. Is it possible to partition the drive in half, and have unRaid treat it as two 250 GB drives? My problem is that I have several ~250 GB drives and this one new 500 GB drive. It seems like the new drive must be left out in order to get best utilize my space. Unfortunately, no... This situation is exactly why a feature on the requested "Laundry List" is there. We have requested the ability to use several smaller drives as a single "concatenated" parity drive. Tom originally said it was not high priority, but could be persuaded to place it higher if more requests for it were made. (I think it is inching upward, but the 2.6 Linux Kernel upgrade is highest in priority to support current hardware) If this feature was available, you could use two of your 250 Gig drives as a logical concatenated 500 Gig parity drive and use your new 500 Gig drive for data. So... lobby Tom to bump "concatenated parity drives" upward in his to-do list. (After Security... That needs to be first to open up new markets for his product. As it is today, no business would use unRaid, as it would allow anyone on the LAN free access) Joe L.
February 18, 200719 yr Author Good point. I saw that on the feature request list but it didn't click as solving my problem. I would think that write performance would improve as well. In the meantime I think I'll go ahead and use the big drive for parity, since I'll probably be replacing my other drives with bigger ones in the future, and who knows when Tom will have the time to implement parity expansion.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.