August 1, 201015 yr I have been thinking about the parity drive and why it needs to be the largest drive. Please excuse me if my thinking is completely wrong as my knowledge of how parity actually works is limited. But at the moment, say you have; 1TB parity drive 1TB data drive 1TB data drive This is fine as the parity covers the size of the largest drive. But if you have this setup; 500Gb parity drive 1TB data drive 1TB data drive It wouldn't work as the parity drive is too small. However what would happen if you partition those 1TB drives into 2, so you have; 500Gb parity drive 1TB data drive (Split into 2 x 500GB partitions) 1TB data drive (Split into 2 x 500GB partitions) You would still have your 2TB of storage, but being protected by a smaller parity drive? Is this theoretically possible? I realise it would probably slow things down a little, but this could be offset by having the parity drive as something like a fast SSD. It would also mean not having to keep upgrading the parity drive as newer, bigger drives come out. Is this a mad hat idea, or would it actually be possible?
August 1, 201015 yr If one of your 1tb disks fails you lose all the data on it since you can no longer calculate the missing data.
August 1, 201015 yr Author If one of your 1tb disks fails you lose all the data on it since you can no longer calculate the missing data. Oh yeah. That would be why it is a bad idea. Lol.
August 2, 201015 yr Plus unRAID creates a single partition on a single drive. That's just the way the code is written right now. You could theoretically short stroke a 1 TB drive so that unRAID sees it as a 500 GB drive, but then you would be wasting a lot of space.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.