February 9, 201115 yr With 50-bay cases like this http://www.chenbro.eu/corporatesite/products_detail.php?sku=45 why limiting unRAID to 20 drives? Because no sane person would trust over 25 drives to a single parity drive... I too have a Norco 4224 and was initially ruminating on expansion options in the future (I'm in the process of transferring my WHS data+drives, so will be at 20 data drives when that's all said and done) via SAN-type external expansion cages when the rumored >24-drive support appears. However, BriT's comment has me reconsidering - I hadn't thought about that "trust to 1 parity drive" angle. I'm now thinking that building out additional standalone unRAID servers would probably be the better way to go. As for managing multiple servers via one interface, it would probably be easier to simply "assign" or task a given server for a specific set of data. For example, once you're maxed out with your original 20 drives, the next unRAID server you bring online should be tasked to taking one of the User Shares from the original server - preferably the largest one. That is, transfer the "Video" User Share - say - to the new server and simply start serving "Video" from that server. Do the same for each new server added to your server farm. Eventually you'd end up with "User Shares" that are actually whole unRAID arrays unto themselves.
February 9, 201115 yr hklt, kind of a Netapp for the poor solution... I'd rather grab an Isilon farm. Believe me, single point of management and entry & being able to grow without moving (er, messing?) around with your data is the only viable solution for managing exploding sets of data. I still believe that multiple volumes with unRaid is the way to go, hopefully Tom is listening...
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.