Hello

 

I have now tested unRAID for a while and are ready to start it up on my C2100 server.

 

But how safe is it to use with 6.2 Public Beta?

 

Would it be better to just run with 6.1.9?

 

I would like to run with the Dual-parity, but if i can lose my data would i prefer to run with 6.1.9

 

What is your opinion about it. 

 

 

My setup will be:

 

C2100 Server:

RAM = 72GB

CPU = 2 x Intel Xeon L5630

RAID CARD = DELL PowerEdge PERC H310, Flash to IT MODE

 

unRAID PRO:

Parity disk = 1-2 x WD RED 4TB

Cache pool = 2 x SSD 250GB

Storage = 4-5 x WD RED 4TB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With ver 6.2 rc4, your data is as safe as it will be with 6.1.9.  Ver6.2 rc4 will probably be ver6.2.0 as Limetech announced a few days ago that the stable release was imminent .  (Although, this delay is making a few folks a bit nervous about saying that...)

Ver6.2 rc4 will probably be ver6.2.0 as Limetech announced a few days ago that the stable release was imminent .  (Although, this delay is making a few folks a bit nervous about saying that...)

 

Stable might be imminent, but since limetech already mentioned 6.2.0-rc5 I would not bet on rc4 as final.

They also mentioned there are known bugs in 6.2.0 that wont get fixed until 6.2.1 or later.

This is the last post in that LimeTech has made in the rc4 Thread.  I believe it addresses both of these issues.

 

    http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=51308.msg494285#msg494285

 

If you look at the next post in this link, the OP of this issue agrees with that decision.  But, as I said on my earlier post, the longer the delay in releasing 6.2.0, the more likely it is that there will be some changes between rc4 and that release.  Tom has always seemed to be very reluctant to release a stable version with any known issues in it in the past.  Perhaps, they have found the cause of the issue with NFS and are trying to correct it...

 

NOTE to the OP---  I observed that you want to use dual parity.  You may want to consider that choice very carefully.  There is a performance penalty in using dual parity with older, slower hardware.  (I had a quick look at the C2100 and, apparently, it was introduced back in about 2010.)  In my opinion, If you have less then eight data drives, on a statistical basis, dual parity doesn't buy that much protection if you monitor the state of your server on a active basis.  By the same token, if you are not monitoring the state of your server, you are as likely to find you have a three drive failure situation as a one or two drive failure issue.  Beyond about ten drives, dual parity makes sense... 

 

Remember, you will never lose all of your data with unRAID, only that on failed drives.  The data drives on unRAID use a standard Linux formatting scheme and you can read them with any standard Linux computer (and even on some other operating systems with the proper drivers).  And probably more then half of the failed drives can be resurrected with built-in disk repair utilities.  The real thing to remember is never to panic when you find one.  If you do a bit of looking, you will find threads where user has make the situation much worse by doing something/anything while in the panic mode!

Thanks for all the answers

 

And

 

NOTE to the OP---  I observed that you want to use dual parity.  You may want to consider that choice very carefully.  There is a performance penalty in using dual parity with older, slower hardware.  (I had a quick look at the C2100 and, apparently, it was introduced back in about 2010.)  In my opinion, If you have less then eight data drives, on a statistical basis, dual parity doesn't buy that much protection if you monitor the state of your server on a active basis.  By the same token, if you are not monitoring the state of your server, you are as likely to find you have a three drive failure situation as a one or two drive failure issue.  Beyond about ten drives, dual parity makes sense... 

 

 

Yea it's true,  I'm just used to running with a RAID system. Where it can fuck a little more up, if a disk dies.