I would like to attach two unraid machines so that i can use one as a directly attached storage device for the other. I was thinking of using two of the same 10gbe cards to do this with a sfp cable running between. Would be nice if I could do it this way rather than having to buy a new case just to have more drives

You can certainly network them together as you suggested but that isn't the same as using one as directly attached storage for the other. What is it that you'd like to achieve?

You could use Unassigned Devices to map SMB/NFS shares and access the other system just like it was a mounted drive.

 

That help?

9 hours ago, Connor Moloney said:

Would be nice if I could do it this way rather than having to buy a new case just to have more drives

 

Another approach is to upsize your drives to get more storage instead of increasing the drive count. More drives means more opportunities for problems. And larger drives typically have better performance due to increased density.

18 hours ago, John_M said:

You can certainly network them together as you suggested but that isn't the same as using one as directly attached storage for the other. What is it that you'd like to achieve?

I already have a powerful server which I use for my plex streaming and vm's, I would like to keep that as a 1u server with my 4 drive slots in it to eventually fill with ssd's for a cache pool for transcoding and cache directory. I would then like to have a second server which is much less powerful just acting as a storage for my plex library, computer backups from network, cctv etc

10 hours ago, BobPhoenix said:

You could use Unassigned Devices to map SMB/NFS shares and access the other system just like it was a mounted drive.

 

That help?

Would this work with dockers on the primary server? Would I just have to map the docker to that share?

9 hours ago, trurl said:

 

Another approach is to upsize your drives to get more storage instead of increasing the drive count. More drives means more opportunities for problems. And larger drives typically have better performance due to increased density.

The only reason I haven't used higher storage drives is because the rebuilding of that drive (if it fails) would take significantly longer and also they seem to be much more expensive? The price would probably be worth it in the long run but at the moment I'm just buying what I can afford

2 hours ago, Connor Moloney said:

also they seem to be much more expensive

Much less expensive in terms of $/TB

18 minutes ago, trurl said:

Much less expensive in terms of $/TB

Which brand of drives would you say is best for $/TB? At the minute I'm using WD red's but I have heard Hitachi ultrastar are supposed to be good?

I originally started with a HP N40L Microserver which great until I started using docker and Plex,

 

I now use this machine purely for storage and have a 2nd machine with a Intel i7 4790 which runs docker and several containers including Plex. I use unassigned devices to map the network location from the N40L and have no issues at all.

4 minutes ago, bally12345 said:

I use unassigned devices to map the network location from the N40L and have no issues at all.

Did you do this using the remote share function? Do you have them both plugged into a switch or a direct connection between the two (I mean do they both need an internet connection as i feel storage box wouldn't need one?) Of course for setup and initial usage it will need a internet connection but can you configure a remote share without internet access?

Both are connected to network switch and mounted as SMB shares on 2nd machine using unassigned devices, both machines have internet connection for plugin updates etc.

 

Just make sure when you configure your containers you map your shares correctly. You could disable the internet access on the storage machine but don't know if you need a connection for the licence to verify on reboot.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Connor Moloney said:

Which brand of drives would you say is best for $/TB? At the minute I'm using WD red's but I have heard Hitachi ultrastar are supposed to be good?

 

I suppose it depends on local availability. Here in the UK, Toshiba disks offer the best value in terms of cost per terabyte, then Seagate IronWolf, then WD Red, then HGST, though prices vary and not all suppliers stock all brands, with Seagate and WD being most common and Toshiba often quite difficult to source.

33 minutes ago, bally12345 said:

don't know if you need a connection for the licence to verify on reboot.

You do not, unless you are using a trial version. Full licenses do NOT need internet for basic functionality, depending on what you define as "basic".

21 minutes ago, John_M said:

 

I suppose it depends on local availability. Here in the UK, Toshiba disks offer the best value in terms of cost per terabyte, then Seagate IronWolf, then WD Red, then HGST, though prices vary and not all suppliers stock all brands, with Seagate and WD being most common and Toshiba often quite difficult to source.

How reliable are toshiba x300 range? Looked at those and they seem to be really affordable and available on amazon (based in UK)

46 minutes ago, bally12345 said:

Both are connected to network switch and mounted as SMB shares on 2nd machine using unassigned devices, both machines have internet connection for plugin updates etc.

 

Just make sure when you configure your containers you map your shares correctly. You could disable the internet access on the storage machine but don't know if you need a connection for the licence to verify on reboot.

 

 

Do I need to map the shares as a specific mode? Does it need to be read/write or r/w/slave or something else?

Edited April 27, 20188 yr by Connor Moloney

11 minutes ago, Connor Moloney said:

How reliable are toshiba x300 range? Looked at those and they seem to be really affordable and available on amazon (based in UK)

 

I don't have any X300s. I do have 15 in the MD04ACA series (mostly 5 TB but some 6 TB) and I like them very much. I hear they are better than the X300s though the evidence is mostly anecdotal. If I needed more I would get the N300 series in preference to the X300s as they are optimised for NAS use. The 6 TB and 8 TB N300s are £140 and £190 (in round pounds) from Amazon at the moment. 8 TB IronWolf is £218 at the moment, though I've seen it for £200 and 8 TB WD Red is £215.

 

FWIW, Backblaze found Toshiba disks to have very good value and reliability though they were frustrated by the barcode (of all things!) which seems to bear not resemblance to the disk's serial number.

I got an 8TB ironwolf from ebuyer for £189 a few weeks ago, they are £198 at the moment though - https://www.ebuyer.com/760589-seagate-ironwolf-8tb-3-5-nas-hard-drive-at-ebuyer-com-st8000vn0022

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 3:33 PM, John_M said:

 

I don't have any X300s. I do have 15 in the MD04ACA series (mostly 5 TB but some 6 TB) and I like them very much. I hear they are better than the X300s though the evidence is mostly anecdotal. If I needed more I would get the N300 series in preference to the X300s as they are optimised for NAS use. The 6 TB and 8 TB N300s are £140 and £190 (in round pounds) from Amazon at the moment. 8 TB IronWolf is £218 at the moment, though I've seen it for £200 and 8 TB WD Red is £215.

 

FWIW, Backblaze found Toshiba disks to have very good value and reliability though they were frustrated by the barcode (of all things!) which seems to bear not resemblance to the disk's serial number.

Thank you I'll have a look at these drives and find the best offer later