Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
Doesn't ntfs have a limit of 16TB per volume?
it depends on the cluster size. I just created a 30TB volume the other day.
-
That's not really a fair example, though. While it is good not to trust things, an induced failure (that's how expansion works) is not a good way to judge reliability. That's like driving into a sign, but then not trusting the autonomous steering. There is good reason to not trust the robot driver, but you can't distrust it based on driving into the sign yourself
-
@jim9500 backing up a full 48tb to b2 would be something like $247/month
-
@DustinB3403 said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
Doesn't ntfs have a limit of 16TB per volume?
NTFS volume limit is 256TB in older systems.
NTFS has an 8PB volume limit in modern ones.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
@jim9500 backing up a full 48tb to b2 would be something like $247/month
But with fees if you want to retrieve it. Just be aware that that can be pretty large.
-
@travisdh1 said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
The triple mirror means that you will have increased read speed. If you don't need the increased read speed, then that's just a waste of drives.
It does (sortof) decrease my risk as I would need 3 drives out of any set of 3 to fail. I understand this looks like overkill. It also helps on read speed. Prior to this array I was using 36 600GB 15K SCSI. My goal was similar speed + safer setup + bigger volume. The difference in cost between using raid 10 & 10 ADM using 3TB drives is only about $2,000.
@scottalanmiller said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
But it is darn close when using triple mirroring!
FWIW - you're the reason I migrated to Raid 10 off of my Raid 6 / 36 drive setup. Lots of yelling at me on Spiceworks a few years ago about how raid 6 isn't safe for huge arrays
-
@jim9500 it decreases the risk by a lot. You might already have risk so low that you don't care, but it certainly decreases it a lot more.
-
This post is deleted! -
@scottalanmiller said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
You can go to Linux and XFS without changing your RAID in any way.
Ah perfect. So I wouldn't need to move to software raid to move away from NTFS. I'm not convinced I need to yet. But if after more research I find out I do - Is it likely I'm going to run into issues using something like SAMBA + XFS as a windows shop network share?
-
@jim9500 said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
@scottalanmiller said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
You can go to Linux and XFS without changing your RAID in any way.
Ah perfect. So I wouldn't need to move to software raid to move away from NTFS. I'm not convinced I need to yet. But if after more research I find out I do - Is it likely I'm going to run into issues using something like SAMBA + XFS as a windows shop network share?
Definitely not. You can use hardware RAID anytime. There are no cases where you can't use hardware RAID.
Well there are, but those are cases where you use hardware that doesn't provide hardware RAID.
-
XFS will present no issues to you as a Windows show. Samba can be a pain to manage, but keep in mind that most NAS products use Samba to talk to Windows. So it is pretty solid when set up correctly.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
There are no cases where you can't use hardware RAID.
Yea - for some reason I was thinking I would need to use ZFS. I'd prefer to stick to the enterprise hardware as it's caused 0 issues for me.
-
@jim9500 said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
@scottalanmiller said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
There are no cases where you can't use hardware RAID.
Yea - for some reason I was thinking I would need to use ZFS. I'd prefer to stick to the enterprise hardware as it's caused 0 issues for me.
Even if you used ZFS, you can use hardware RAID. By definition, all file systems must work the same on hardware RAID as they do on bare metal drives. If they didn't, it means that the hardware RAID isn't working.
-
@jim9500 said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
It seems like I remember Scott Miller talking about combining enterprise hardware + SAS/SATA Controller + Linux for storage requirements vs proprietary hardware raid controller.
@Donahue - Yes. I have a similar setup offsite backup several miles away for disaster recovery / hardware failure etc. I know raid != backups.
What's the air-gap to protect against an encryption event if any?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
@DustinB3403 said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
@jim9500 backing up a full 48tb to b2 would be something like $247/month
But with fees if you want to retrieve it. Just be aware that that can be pretty large.
Unless your storage provider doesn't charge for downloads... (Wasabi is one -- https://wasabi.com/pricing/)
-
That's a lot of disks for such a small array.
I'd just put 6x12TB drives in RAID6 and put it on something that has at least 16x3.5" drive bays.
That way you have enough space to make a new array and transfer the data when it's time to upgrade the storage.I'd very much prefer linux over windows for fileserver use and software raid over hardware. It's easier to have the data survive several generations of hardware as you can mount the old drives directly on a new server without problems. It becomes hardware and linux distro/version agnostic.
For our own use we like Supermicro hardware because they are modular as well. Supermicro sells their stuff as components as well as complete servers which makes it very flexible. Standard-sized server motherboards for instance means you can replace a motherboard without having to source exactly what you had. And you don't have to use their branded memory or branded disks.
-
@PhlipElder said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
What's the air-gap to protect against an encryption event if any?
What's the air-gap to protect against an encryption event if any?
My backup server has access to the rest of the network - but it pulls the backups to itself vs backups being pushed. The rest of the network can't directly write to it. My backups happen weekly - so my (hope) is that I would recognize what was happening to my live network before it was backed up.
I have been contemplating doubling my backup storage space to make sure I have enough space to store older file revisions in a ransomware situation.
-
@PhlipElder said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
@jim9500 said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
It seems like I remember Scott Miller talking about combining enterprise hardware + SAS/SATA Controller + Linux for storage requirements vs proprietary hardware raid controller.
@Donahue - Yes. I have a similar setup offsite backup several miles away for disaster recovery / hardware failure etc. I know raid != backups.
What's the air-gap to protect against an encryption event if any?
LOL. I like that term. "Encryption Event"
It implies, quite correctly, that many of those problems are not exactly malware. Many are just bad system design.
-
@dafyre said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
@scottalanmiller said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
@DustinB3403 said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
@jim9500 backing up a full 48tb to b2 would be something like $247/month
But with fees if you want to retrieve it. Just be aware that that can be pretty large.
Unless your storage provider doesn't charge for downloads... (Wasabi is one -- https://wasabi.com/pricing/)
Right, was talking about B2.
-
@jim9500 said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
@PhlipElder said in Safe to have a 48TB Windows volume?:
What's the air-gap to protect against an encryption event if any?
What's the air-gap to protect against an encryption event if any?
My backup server has access to the rest of the network - but it pulls the backups to itself vs backups being pushed. The rest of the network can't directly write to it. My backups happen weekly - so my (hope) is that I would recognize what was happening to my live network before it was backed up.
I have been contemplating doubling my backup storage space to make sure I have enough space to store older file revisions in a ransomware situation.
Might be a good idea. Although at that size, encryption would take a very long time.
