I did a thing, have a quick Linux question
-
RAID0 would give you a lot of read/write performance while not caring if you lose a drive (as the data is gone anyways)
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
I'd rather lose 1 disk and 2TB versus lose 1 disk and 6TB
How many TB do you have that you can't lose?
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
I'd rather lose 1 disk and 2TB versus lose 1 disk and 6TB
I don't get this concept...
RAID0 you'd lose it all, no RAID you'd have no "protection" of a drive failing either.
So unless you mean to mirror the drives in a separate mechanism for protection, while not getting any benefit of RAID, you have a backup.
-
I'd say 8-10TB
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
I'd say 8-10TB
and how much total? Also how quickly are you going to expand?
-
Well what are we talking here, for me it would be (atleast) 3 2TB drives, so you are saying make 1 giant 6TB raid 0 correct?
So 1 drive dies I lose 6TB
Or are you saying make 3 2TB Raid 0's so that if I lose 1 I only lose 2TB
Can I then make it appear to be one disk though?And please keep in mind there might just not be a linux thing I dont know.
For example in Windows I have stablebit drive pool pooling my drives so that if I lose 1 drive I only lose the data on that one drive.
-
Total (used and unused) I'm sitting at 22TB.
And I'd say I'm expanding fast enough that I felt I needed 22TB, have 6TB free, had prob 12TB+ free 6 months ago.
Offloading some junk to the cloud though currently.
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
Well what are we talking here, for me it would be (atleast) 3 2TB drives, so you are saying make 1 giant 6TB raid 0 correct?
So 1 drive dies I lose 6TB
Or are you saying make 3 2TB Raid 0's so that if I lose 1 I only lose 2TB
Can I then make it appear to be one disk though?And please keep in mind there might just not be a linux thing I dont know.
For example in Windows I have stablebit drive pool pooling my drives so that if I lose 1 drive I only lose the data on that one drive.
My thought was if you have 2TB you can't lose out of 10, put everything in a raid 0 and then buy a small NAS backup for the 2 TB.
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
Well what are we talking here, for me it would be (atleast) 3 2TB drives, so you are saying make 1 giant 6TB raid 0 correct?
So 1 drive dies I lose 6TB
Or are you saying make 3 2TB Raid 0's so that if I lose 1 I only lose 2TB
Can I then make it appear to be one disk though?And please keep in mind there might just not be a linux thing I dont know.
For example in Windows I have stablebit drive pool pooling my drives so that if I lose 1 drive I only lose the data on that one drive.
I'm just trying to understand what you are trying to do.
Without RAID, you won't be able to present multiple disks to any OS (unless it's FakeRAID and Windows) and show it as one drive.
-
My initial question was, is there a way to group harddrives in a non raid format. So yes, a fakeraid
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
My initial question was, is there a way to group harddrives in a non raid format. So yes, a fakeraid
There is, and FakeRAID is about as useful as RAID0 (if you want to protect the data).
Simply don't use it.
-
And maybe this is just me going from Windows to Linux, I admittedly don't know anything about how harddrives work in Linux
-
I'd do RAID1, or RAID 6... I've only got ~3TB of data, but only 2 x 3TB drives (one of them is my backup drive at the moment).
If I don't have a real RAID controller, I'd use mdadm for Linux. I've used it in the past, and it worked very well.
-
@Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
And maybe this is just me going from Windows to Linux, I admittedly don't know anything about how harddrives work in Linux
The thing to know is that software raid is totally unreliable in windows and very reliable in linux
-
And FakeRAID in linux will (every time) show you all of the drives. It will not present a single disk to you. It will show all of the disks in the "array" as individual disks. Because FakeRAID is dangerous and linux makes that very clear.
-
I'm making an assumption right now because I think I pretty much understand the way pooling works in relation to HD IOPS and I'm highly doubting you get any of the real benefit of a raid doing it that way--at least speed wise. Hypothetical scenario:
You create a software raid in ZFS with 4 hard drives in pool1. let's say 1200 IOPS total for this pool.
Later you add 4 hard drives to that raid but it's added in pool2. Each pool is 1200 IOPS, not 2400 IOPS.FakeRAID is probably non-existent IOPS gains. It's like grouping for the sake of a label (I think). @JaredBusch could explain this better than I could though.
-
@wirestyle22 said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
FakeRAID is probably non-existent IOPS gains. It's like grouping for the sake of a label (I think). @JaredBusch could explain this better than I could though.
FakeRAID has all the IOPS gains and the mirroring or redundancy. The Fake refers to the fact that it is built to trick you into think that it is hardware, when it is not. The RAID portion is real.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
@wirestyle22 said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
FakeRAID is probably non-existent IOPS gains. It's like grouping for the sake of a label (I think). @JaredBusch could explain this better than I could though.
FakeRAID has all the IOPS gains and the mirroring or redundancy. The Fake refers to the fact that it is built to trick you into think that it is hardware, when it is not. The RAID portion is real.
Glad to be wrong about the raid portion of it but you can only Raid 0 or 1 with nothing nested and only whole disks. No hot spares and no hot swappable drives. I don't see why anyone would do it.
-
@wirestyle22 said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
@scottalanmiller said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
@wirestyle22 said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
FakeRAID is probably non-existent IOPS gains. It's like grouping for the sake of a label (I think). @JaredBusch could explain this better than I could though.
FakeRAID has all the IOPS gains and the mirroring or redundancy. The Fake refers to the fact that it is built to trick you into think that it is hardware, when it is not. The RAID portion is real.
Glad to be wrong but you can only Raid 0 or 1 with nothing nested and only whole disks. No hot spares and no hot swappable drives. I don't see why anyone would do it.
Raid 0, I see very very very few cases where it'd be useful... But on a real raid controller, you can do hot spares for raid 1.
-
@dafyre said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
@wirestyle22 said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
@scottalanmiller said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
@wirestyle22 said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:
FakeRAID is probably non-existent IOPS gains. It's like grouping for the sake of a label (I think). @JaredBusch could explain this better than I could though.
FakeRAID has all the IOPS gains and the mirroring or redundancy. The Fake refers to the fact that it is built to trick you into think that it is hardware, when it is not. The RAID portion is real.
Glad to be wrong but you can only Raid 0 or 1 with nothing nested and only whole disks. No hot spares and no hot swappable drives. I don't see why anyone would do it.
Raid 0, I see very very very few cases where it'd be useful... But on a real raid controller, you can do hot spares for raid 1.
On a real controller yeah but we are talking about FakeRAID.
