Hi.

 

Since I had an i7-4790K lying around and couldn't find a proper mainboard (new) to hackintosh it, I thought I try a server using unRAID instead. (I was put off by FreeNAS for now, even though speed seems to be faster)

 

I used some long-named Gigabyte Z97 board and the 4790K and 32 GB RAM and then two 8 TB Seagate Archive HDDs (non-NAS versions) for dual parity and four new 6 TB IronWolf non-Pro HDDs to build my new unRAID server (still trial mode for four weeks).

 

As CCC did not work properly using SMB (and I don't want to use AFP if it is on its way out) with the 24 TB share I created, I thought about sparse bundles, as I like their growing capacity (even if limited to the set capacity) and the use of HFS+ (also on its way out, but not as far).

 

Now since new sparse bundles are not even 1 GB in size, having many of them on the first disk might probably create a problem in the near future, once the first 6 TB disk is full (I still have about 3+ TB free on that one).

 

How does unRAID behave in such a case, will the sparse bundles be split on two disks and create a mess somehow? 

 

I still backup the contents of the sparse bundles to external project driven disks (where they originate), thus I am not that lost if it gets dirty.

 

 

Another question: Is the use of a sparse bundle the best way to go or should I switch to AFP and CCC and no sparse bundles and just project driven folders in my 24 TB share?

My other computers in the network are all Macs and one other X99 Hackintosh, thus if AFP is still the best method, I can switch to it easily, especially since Sidebar shortcuts are easier to create with AFP shared Shares.

I also like to use CCC for its checksum feature and continuing a copy process without as much hiccups as Finder would have.

 

Thanks for any help and pointers you can offer.

 

Rainer

 

Well, it seems unRAID is using the second disk now for more data, even though the first disk still has 3 TB of free space, unless I have set that somewhere.

31 minutes ago, rainer said:

Well, it seems unRAID is using the second disk now for more data, even though the first disk still has 3 TB of free space, unless I have set that somewhere.

What allocation method are you using.

5 minutes ago, wgstarks said:

What allocation method are you using.

 

 

High Water, with 1 TB minimum free space.

 

The data I am copying now is about 1.33 TB into a 1.5 TB sparse bundle (since it is "old" data, unlikely to grow more) using CCC.

Edited June 24, 20179 yr by rainer

16 hours ago, rainer said:

Hi.

 

Since I had an i7-4790K lying around and couldn't find a proper mainboard (new) to hackintosh it, I thought I try a server using unRAID instead. (I was put off by FreeNAS for now, even though speed seems to be faster)

 

I used some long-named Gigabyte Z97 board and the 4790K and 32 GB RAM and then two 8 TB Seagate Archive HDDs (non-NAS versions) for dual parity and four new 6 TB IronWolf non-Pro HDDs to build my new unRAID server (still trial mode for four weeks).

 

As CCC did not work properly using SMB (and I don't want to use AFP if it is on its way out) with the 24 TB share I created, I thought about sparse bundles, as I like their growing capacity (even if limited to the set capacity) and the use of HFS+ (also on its way out, but not as far).

 

Now since new sparse bundles are not even 1 GB in size, having many of them on the first disk might probably create a problem in the near future, once the first 6 TB disk is full (I still have about 3+ TB free on that one).

 

How does unRAID behave in such a case, will the sparse bundles be split on two disks and create a mess somehow? 

 

I still backup the contents of the sparse bundles to external project driven disks (where they originate), thus I am not that lost if it gets dirty.

 

 

Another question: Is the use of a sparse bundle the best way to go or should I switch to AFP and CCC and no sparse bundles and just project driven folders in my 24 TB share?

My other computers in the network are all Macs and one other X99 Hackintosh, thus if AFP is still the best method, I can switch to it easily, especially since Sidebar shortcuts are easier to create with AFP shared Shares.

I also like to use CCC for its checksum feature and continuing a copy process without as much hiccups as Finder would have.

 

Thanks for any help and pointers you can offer.

 

Rainer

 

One advantage of AFP is that you can limit the size of the unRAID share. Once the share is full Time Machine will start deleting the oldest backups. AFAIK this isn't possible with TM and SMB. I believe CCC should be able to accomplish this strategy though with SMB.

 

How the backups are split across disks would depend on your allocation method. Shouldn't really matter though. The backup share will mount as a single volume.

5 minutes ago, wgstarks said:

One advantage of AFP is that you can limit the size of the unRAID share. Once the share is full Time Machine will start deleting the oldest backups. AFAIK this isn't possible with TM and SMB. I believe CCC should be able to accomplish this strategy though with SMB.

 

How the backups are split across disks would depend on your allocation method. Shouldn't really matter though. The backup share will mount as a single volume.

 

 

I am not using the slow method of Time Machine to backup, I use CCC for all my backup and copying tasks (of critical data where checksums are better).

 

I just wanted to make sure, that if something fails, a sparse bundle is not split onto two disks, but as I have two parity disks I guess I am safe in case of minor hiccups.

 

The data will still be on several other disks, but it was a hassle to use four bay enclosures and always insert the correct 1 TB to 3 TB HDD, thus my use of unRAID, as it should be simpler to access data from one SHARE (volume) than from dozens (have about 30 HDDs in the range of 500 GB to 3 TB).

 

Thank you for your assurance.

Edited June 24, 20179 yr by rainer

8 minutes ago, rainer said:

 

 

High Water, with 1 TB minimum free space.

 

The data I am copying now is about 1.33 TB into a 1.5 TB sparse bundle (since it is "old" data, unlikely to grow more) using CCC.

With high water unRAID will write to the disk with the most free space until half of that space is filled (high water mark) and then switch to the next disk with the most free space.

You might be interested in this discussion regarding using CCC and sparse image backups. Might be a better solution moving forward. Haven't tried it yet though.

1 hour ago, wgstarks said:

With high water unRAID will write to the disk with the most free space until half of that space is filled (high water mark) and then switch to the next disk with the most free space.

 

Thanks for explaining that to me, I wasn't that well informed using the built in help. My reading skills are not that well built, unlike the unRAID.

 

1 hour ago, wgstarks said:

You might be interested in this discussion regarding using CCC and sparse image backups. Might be a better solution moving forward. Haven't tried it yet though.

 

It seems it was a problem for pre-Sierra systems, and as I use Sierra, it does not seem to be such a problem anymore. I'll see and also ask in the thread you linked to. Might have to change my methods. Oh, learning something new is not as wonderful as they want you to believe. Lucsly out.