FreeNAS versus unRAID as the operating-system for a DIY NAS? - Printable Version
+- XBMC Community Forum (http://forum.xbmc.org)
+-- Forum: Help and Support (/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+--- Forum: Hardware for XBMC (/forumdisplay.php?fid=112)
+--- Thread: FreeNAS versus unRAID as the operating-system for a DIY NAS? (/showthread.php?tid=82811)
- gadgetman - 2010-10-15 19:22
GJones Wrote:Which is horrible, since you are commenting on the lack of quality of community support on the community support forum for another piece of software.
You seem to be forgetting the main (and huge) difference that unRAID is a commercial and proprietary software. You pay for their software (I bought the Pro version) and I would say it's unfair (to the community) if you wholly and fully depend on community support out of it. It's certainly different than xbmc.
Quote:I've seen few people have a problem with unRAID: buy hardware that is certified and it works. I've asked quite a few questions along the way and never had to wait more than an hour or two to get not just an answer but the correct one.
Perhaps you would want to ask my specific issues with them, before making false assumptions?
i should add that their list of officially 'certified hardware' are quite outdated and I did buy the best hardware that are 'community certified, which works'.
- froggit - 2010-10-15 21:38
BLKMGK Wrote:So if I choose a single parity drive and two drives fail what's left? What data recovery tools do I have available for the drives that failed and I pulled? How many drives worth of data did I have to sacrifice in your example? Must all of those drives be spinning for me to watch a movie?
Thanks for the entertainment - very amusing
- you hate the idea of spending money on spinning disks up
- you hate the idea of spending money on buying one extra disk*
- you like to spend money on something like unRAID which has inferior data protection
- you like to spend money on leaving your unRAID NAS on 24/7
Thanks for clearing that up.
*The money you refused to spend on one extra disk will result in a 2 drive failure losing you 2 drives worth of data (movies).
My system would lose no data but yours loses 2 drives of data. I can see now why you love unRAID
- froggit - 2010-10-15 21:58
Man, this bit made me die laughing...
BLKMGK Wrote:I DO have parity data. I am willing to use one disk to store parity for all of my disks. So if I have 15 data disks I am using ONE parity disk.
I take it all back... you are not generous at all.
If you had one parity disk for 15 data disks I think you would:
a. Put Ebeneezer Scrooge out of business
b. Would be taking a ridiculous gamble with your data.
I wish you luck, you'll probably need it, or at least a lot of time to spend attempting to recover your data when those drives get cranky. And just imagine all that bit rot goodness...
- gadgetman - 2010-10-15 22:02
froggit Wrote:Thanks for the entertainment - very amusing
Why bother debating over this?
Who cares if someone even store their media on twenty 80GB USB drives connected thru USB 1.1 hubs, setup with windows JBOD?
Seriously though, I run 2 storage servers at home: a 12TB zfs on a freenas, and a 27TB unRAID.
Guess which one is for my media?
The zfs machine is used for ip camera and personal backup system where I need the highest performance and I want to avoid any bitrots and immediate access.
unRAID is just GREAT for building a media cabinet. I started out with something like 4TB a few years ago and slowly added a drive at a time to expand the unRAID volumes. None of the original drives were used anymore, yet the original data and drive/volumes are still the one used; except expanded thru more than a dozen steps. I have a few email triggers on it (temperature, SMART checks, and daily reports) to avoid such slim catastrophe like 2 drives failing; but if that happens I could just rerip the data on just those 2 drives. No big deal, the benefit far outweigh the cons for me.
Horses for courses.
froggit Wrote:Man, this bit made me die laughing...
Are you guys talking about media server or something to hold much higher valued commodities?
Do you expect people to take you seriously with all those ignorant and derisive remarks?
- markguy - 2010-10-15 22:13
I think it would be awesome if this thread could stay above a schoolground level of maturity. I don't see anyone flocking to a particular solution based on what's being displayed here, frankly.
One of the things that concerns me most about the ZFS solution is the part of Simon's blog described as RAIDZ expansion. If I have 14TB of data, I have to have at least 28TB of storage to increase the size of the storage pool. Actually, it's 28TB, plus whatever you want to grow the pool by. I'd have a hard time justifying buying, building and managing a spare box just to keep a spare, empty 14TB of space around.
To someone like me, who uses unRAID, but is interested in ZFS's robustness, it seems a better idea might be to have two boxes, an unRAID box for replaceable media rips that grows pretty effortlessly as needed and another using ZFS for storing irreplaceable documents, photos, to-do lists (which my wife claims are critically important).
- froggit - 2010-10-15 22:13
gadgetman Wrote:Why bother debating over this?
If you read the derision of BLKMGK's putdowns to various people in his last posts you might start to appreciate my humour... then again, perhaps not
- poofyhairguy - 2010-10-15 22:16
I think you are misconstruing things here. It is not always about straight costs of power and disks.
On the first point, I personally don't care about the power costs of spinning disks up. Here in Texas my power comes from Wind Turbines so I can waste as much as I want and all it hurts is my wallet, not mother nature.
But I am scared that running consumer drives ALL THE TIME wear them out based on my experience with my RAID 5 server, and I think the only way you can get four years out of consumer drives is to spin them down whenever you can.
There is a cost component there because I could easily just buy enterprise drives made for RAID (and therefore ZFS) instead, but personally the idea of spending twice as much on storage as I could seems like a poor deal when I can just use different software that leaves the drives spun down most of the time.
On the second point, buying an extra disk is no big deal. Heck I have a extra 2TB drive on my desk that isn't in my Unraid server yet because I don't need the space yet.
The real problem is that the extra disk takes an extra slot that I could use for storage. My larger server can only take 16 disks as is, and the second I go past 16 disks I need to spend serious money upgrading to a 20 bay Norco. And once you get enough data to fill those drives, the next option is to rebuy EVERYTHING (mobo/case/PSU/etc.) to buy another server.
The real costs that hurt is not the per drive cost, it is the per bay cost. Drives are outright cheap when compared to all the hardware it takes to make that drive work.
Therefore I want as many available bays as possible working towards storage, as that means I can go that much longer before I need to build another server and spend some real money.
The idea of tying up two or three bays with parity drives when I could just use one seems wasteful, especially because this isn't some server that is gonna get me fired if some data gets lost (I just lose some free time to re-rip/download).
The main reason why RAID servers have more than one drive fail at once is because:
-The usage of the server is so intense that when another drive dies the rest are super stressed till it is replaced because the server can't have downtime
-Because RAID/ZFS requires all the drives to be the same make and size for optimal results you often buy the drives at one out of single batch that could have issues
With Unraid I avoid the second scenario by mixing and matching drive sizes and brands. In my big server no two drives are the same.
I avoid the first scenario by taking my server offline when a drive dies, and I let it rebuild the lost disk without any other pressure. I tell the wife that "tonight we can't watch XBMC because my server needs repairs, lets go see a movie in the theater instead" and I let Unraid do its rebuild thing in a low stress environment.
Now obviously I couldn't do this at work where that server must be online for business to happen, but that is why home use can have differing solutions.
No one solution is better than another completely, and there is no "obvious answer" for a mediaserver. If you value you time more than anything and you are only ripping stuff you legitimately own, than maybe ZFS with tripple redundancy is perfect. If you value hoarding as much illicit content off the usenet as possible before it gets past the retention mark and every byte you can free for storage seriously helps with the quest, then Unraid with its one drive parity makes sense.
Each to their own, and each technology for whatever needs fit it best!
- harryzimm - 2010-10-15 22:16
This thread has become borderline ridiculous. Why can't we agree that unraid and zfs are both good storage solutions. People can decide, which is best for there needs. This being the xbmc forum and all, most people will be using there nas for media storage. Like many people in this thread have stated, if you store priceless photo's, docs, etc, on your nas, you should backup over multiple devices.
Zfs seems to be an excellent storage solution, way more than i need for my media collection. But that is my preference. Why not let people make their own decision without shoving your setup in their face. What works for you, doesn't necessarily have to work for the next person.
Unraid or an OS with zfs? Why not try them both and make a decision on what best suits you.
- maxinc - 2010-10-15 22:19
froggit Wrote:My system would lose no data but yours loses 2 drives of data. I can see now why you love unRAID
But if you are in really bad luck and 3 drives fail out of 16, I would loose 3 drives and you would loose them all.
So I guess it boils down to your paranoia level. For reasonably paranoid users (like the majority) unRAID would do just fine and very unlucky few, if any, will suffer data loss. For seriously paranoid users like you, it is clearly a bad choice but for insanely paranoid people like me, unRAID is still better for data protection since it minimises the loss in case of a disaster.
Spinning individual drives. Is not the power saving but decreasing the potential for mechanical failure of a hard drive if you spin it unnecessarily. And statistically that's a much higher risk than getting a bit rot.
The one thing is certain. Hard drives DO fail and WILL fail. It would be foolish to believe they don't. unRAID offers excellent protection for that, especially in todays TB age when people don't fully realise how much data they will loose when their "1TB external" gets knocked over.
unRAID is also cheaper. The $60 for the the license cost is easily recovered by its flexibility to use different types and sizes of hard drives.
- froggit - 2010-10-15 22:19
markguy Wrote:I think it would be awesome if this thread could stay above a schoolground level of maturity. I don't see anyone flocking to a particular solution based on what's being displayed here, frankly.
If you want to simply expand a ZFS storage pool, you either:
1. add a new vdev (a bunch of drives, as many as you like >1), OR
2. replace drives in an existing vdev with larger ones