1. OCAU Merchandise is available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion in this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

9 TB Raid0 File Server

Discussion in 'Storage & Backup' started by _SiL3nT_, Oct 11, 2010.

  1. _SiL3nT_

    _SiL3nT_ New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Geraldton
    SPECS
    Some Atx Board
    2.7ghz dual core
    2gig ddr3 ram
    2x 4tb drive pools in raid0
    1x 40gig ssd for OS


    baiscly data is mirrored on both pools the reason behind it is because when a raid 5 fails u have to wait for the raid to rebuild it self and that can take days on a 8tb raid 5 where is it will take 4 hours to copy 4tb to another pool so less downtime

    for those of u who say im loosing space money isnt really a issue so when it gets fool i will add another 2 8tb pools atm this setup hasnt cost me much



    this would be the read and write speed on the server

    Click to view full size!


    This Is What The Drives look Like

    Click to view full size!


    this is the server all up about 300 bucks to make minus the hdds

    Click to view full size!
     
  2. Bangers

    Bangers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    Messages:
    7,254
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    9 Disk RAID0 being copied to a separate RAID5 to solve rebuild times? Sounds like you have a lot to learn (and I'm not just talking about your spelling).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nested_RAID_levels#RAID_10_.28RAID_1.2B0.29

    I suspect the level of stupidity already reached in this thread is well beyond acceptable levels ergo I look forward to immediately unsubscribing.
     
  3. OP
    OP
    _SiL3nT_

    _SiL3nT_ New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Geraldton
    what are u talking about there is 2 pools of raid 0 no raid 5

    its still quicker to copy data from 1 raid 0 pool to another then it is to rebuild a raid 5 when a drive fails

    and as for the spelling not a real big issue
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2010
  4. terrastrife

    terrastrife Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    18,819
    Location:
    ADL/SA The Monopoly State
    if teh data is mirroered between both raid0 arrays, why not just use raid1?

    i cant really see how it would take too much longer, i mean rebuilding goes as fast as disks can read... unless of course your software solution is stupidly slow. my raid5 rebuilds within a day for >10TB and my unraid within 8 hours for >20TB.
     
  5. OP
    OP
    _SiL3nT_

    _SiL3nT_ New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Geraldton
    hmmm well ive never really had to rebuilt a raid as of yet thank god but u have a point just the raid cards i used were from ebay they only cheap and was just eayer to setup 2 raid 0s less fuss i guess

    to tell u the truth not much thought went into it i had the hdds and the cards just put it into 2 raids just wanted some sort of redundency
     
  6. sub.mesa

    sub.mesa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Messages:
    271
    Location:
    Europe
    Two RAID0s means two filesystems and thus excludes alot of risks associated with just one filesystem on a mirror instead.

    A RAID1 is not a backup, but two RAID0s can be.
     
  7. SkItZo666

    SkItZo666 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    199
    Location:
    Perth
    Here is the info you need in your language:
    raidzorz 10 is the samez setups as what you have nowz but more faster
    it providez redundancy as well as quicks

    short version:
    raid 10 for the winzorz super l33tne55

    P.S. my raid 5 performs comparatively to your raid 0 setup.
    P.S.S. Before you start complaining about raid 5 performance, think about buying a hardware card
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2010
  8. oli

    oli Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    7,263
    Location:
    The Internet
    I think part of his point is that it was cheap because of the way it's setup. If he bought a hardware RAID card it'd cost a lot more wouldn't it?
     
  9. SkItZo666

    SkItZo666 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    199
    Location:
    Perth
    Can pick up a perc 5/i for 150-200 bucks either here on the forums or on ebay
    Considering he has probably spent 3-4 times that amount on drives alone i think it is worth it personally
     
  10. OP
    OP
    _SiL3nT_

    _SiL3nT_ New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Geraldton
    yea this is an option but in a new server i would much like to leave this one and sell it make a new one with 2 tb drives like some of the other 20tb servers on here thats what i want
     
  11. OP
    OP
    _SiL3nT_

    _SiL3nT_ New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Geraldton

    yea but can ur raid 5 write at 400mbs i want speed and redundency this way i have both
     
  12. raX

    raX Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    735
    Your LAN can't do 400mB/s. Moot point.
     
  13. SkItZo666

    SkItZo666 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    199
    Location:
    Perth
    It comes pretty damned close.
    [​IMG]
     
  14. OP
    OP
    _SiL3nT_

    _SiL3nT_ New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Geraldton
    when copying from 1pc to another i get an average of 200-250mbs on dual gigabit with raid 0 at both ends

    i think thats good enough
     
  15. OP
    OP
    _SiL3nT_

    _SiL3nT_ New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Geraldton
    in which of these photos is ur raid 5 setup the crystaldisk mark setup is no where near a raid 5 so which one is raid 5

    to my knowledge raid 5 can only write as fast as a single drive
    and ur crystal mark image is only writing a 100mbs so its burst speed not actual speed
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2010
  16. SkItZo666

    SkItZo666 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    199
    Location:
    Perth
    They're all raid5 results. heres my 1000MB CMD results
    [​IMG]
    Bam.

    These results are also without a bbu so its in writethrough not writeback which provides better performance

    Also, my raid is configured for large file transfer.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2010
  17. OP
    OP
    _SiL3nT_

    _SiL3nT_ New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Geraldton
    lol i cant see that image and im not sure what bbu is
     
  18. OP
    OP
    _SiL3nT_

    _SiL3nT_ New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Geraldton
    Wow Thats Impressive So How Did U Get It To Write That Fast Im Interested Now
     
  19. SkItZo666

    SkItZo666 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    199
    Location:
    Perth
    bbu is a battery backup unit, its required on perc cards to allow the card to safely power down and save the data that is in the cache incase of a sudden power loss when the card is set in writethrough mode.

    Didnt do anything really special....Just got the perc 6/i (basically the same as perc 5/i but offers raid 6 and doesnt have external cache) connected my 5 samsung f3's set my raid 5 to a 512k stripe and formatted with a 4k allocation

    P.S. let me know if you want me to do a raid 0 test and what stripe size if you do
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2010
  20. OP
    OP
    _SiL3nT_

    _SiL3nT_ New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Geraldton
    thats awesome ive never seen a raid 5 write that fast i might have to look into writethrough mode as im very interested now thanks :)



    and so when writing to the drive what speeds to do u got when u copy a large amount of data

    haha and if thats what ur getting in raid 5 i would hate to see what u get in raid 0 :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2010

Share This Page

Advertisement: