Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
In Raid 10, that is 168 TB, could make do with that... would Raid 60 ever be an option here?
Under no conditions is anything but RAID 10 a viable option. But under no condition is QNAP a viable option. So it all comes down to "what are you willing to do that isn't production ready" to meet an arbitrary budget, and how much of not providing the requirement space are you willing to fudge on? And remember, after RAID overhead and filesystem overhead, your 168 is going to be a LOT smaller than you are expecting.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
Not saying its a good idea by any means, but:
https://www.broadbandbuyer.com/products/35658-qnap-tvs-2472xu-rp-i5-8g/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImLiIoYXn4QIVy73tCh0pKQYDEAQYASABEgJ7NPD_BwE
24 bay NAS.24 bay isn't possible, it's too small for your requirement and, like the budget, the requirement is the requirement. So that rules out the QNAP.
24 bay, 14 tb disks, raid 10 = 168 Tb, no? Unless im doing something wrong...
Yes, and 170 was your absolutely bottom line.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
We already covered that it is really out of the question to try to use those unreliable drives. Even in RAID 10, the risk here is just absurd.
-
I think the way this conversation actually started was like this:
Boss says: We need to setup some sort of backup solutions
Jimmy says: I can do it for X
Boss says: WOW that's amazing, budget signed.
Jimmy says: Well shit now I'm stuck and I need a vendor to give me stuff for free. . -
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
I think the way this conversation actually started was like this:
Boss says: We need to setup some sort of backup solutions
Jimmy says: I can do it for X
Boss says: WOW that's amazing, budget signed.
Jimmy says: Well shit now I'm stuck and I need a vendor to give me stuff for free. .Not quite. Im given budget. So, you have x to do y.
-
Popping to the shops, will read when back
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
I think the way this conversation actually started was like this:
Boss says: We need to setup some sort of backup solutions
Jimmy says: I can do it for X
Boss says: WOW that's amazing, budget signed.
Jimmy says: Well shit now I'm stuck and I need a vendor to give me stuff for free. .Not quite. Im given budget. So, you have x to do y.
Then you're only option is to say I can only do X, and extended warranties are not an option. I get a 12 month warranty (per part maybe) and that's it.
Or go to your boss(es) and have a real conversation that what they've set aside won't do what they are asking for.
-
I think you need to stop and step back and ask yourself what the heck is driving this insanity. This is getting into some crazy territory...
- You are looking to run a system famous for having no support (QNAP.)
- You are looking at running a hobby class system (and not even a good hobby class system) as a giant investment in backups (QNAP)
- You are depending on using hard drives widely to be considered unusable garbage to get the cost within reason.
- You are making a RAID array larger than anyone really considered RAID to be viable, using the largest drives on the market. Minor on its own, but this is beyond what businesses consider the range for RAID.
- You want support options, but in the end all of the options that you are considering are as far from that as possible, not just a lack of unified support, but also vendors for whom you can't stockpile parts or get parts replacement without sending the system back first. Anti-support, for all intents and purposes.
- You are considering non-production RAID systems to try to cut corners.
- You are looking to miss your storage requirements to make it "work."
Any one of these factors on its own, there is some wiggle room in anything. But put it all together, it doesn't add up. It's one reckless decision built on another. You would HAVE to tell the business up front that you are talking about spending in excess of the budget, to put a total joke into production that you can't even stand near, let alone behind. If you build this, you really have to explain that the expectation is that it won't work and the data will be lost.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
Not quite. Im given budget. So, you have x to do y.
Also if your boss gave you a budget, then they must know that the budget will not meet the business needs and that somewhere corners are going to be cut.
Warranty, part quality, storage capacity, reliability.
Something has to give to reduce the cost, and the most likely thing to be cut (easily) is the warranty.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
I think the way this conversation actually started was like this:
Boss says: We need to setup some sort of backup solutions
Jimmy says: I can do it for X
Boss says: WOW that's amazing, budget signed.
Jimmy says: Well shit now I'm stuck and I need a vendor to give me stuff for free. .Not quite. Im given budget. So, you have x to do y.
And its' not possible, so you go back and say "can't be done... do you want to adjust the budget, or the goals, or do you want to start over and approach this like a business?"
There are mutliple ways to fix it, but not providing a working solution isn't one of them.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
Not quite. Im given budget. So, you have x to do y.
Also if your boss gave you a budget, then they must know that the budget will not meet the business needs and that somewhere corners are going to be cut.
Warranty, part quality, storage capacity, reliability.
Something has to give to reduce the cost, and the most likely thing to be cut (easily) is the warranty.
Exactly...
- If he came up with the budget, tell him to tell you what to buy with it. He can't have produced a budget without knowing what that budget would buy. So he knows something you don't.
- What the business wants here isn't within its reach. Something HAS to give. And the one thing that makes zero sense to give is "the ability to be the desired solution."
-
Now for the REAL question....
What the heck is the goal? All of this is under the hood discussion. At no point has anyone said "here is the end goal". Instead, we are given a stack of money, and a set of technologies and specs, and told to make the two meet. That is never how to approach an IT (or any) problem. Chances are, a bunch of false assumptions are included here and are causing a lot of the problems.
Bottom line... what's being asked for cannot be done in any acceptable fashion, not even close. But what we assume the goal is can probably be met pretty easily. We just have to know for sure what the goal actually is, so that we can ensure that we meet it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid/limits?:
The issue is due to the capacity you're looking at, unless you were going with those 18TB SSD Samsung drives, which at that capacity you'd consider RAID6.
It's 7.2k disks, only for backups.
In something like RAID 6, imagine the time it would take to resilver even a single drive. That make drives, that slow, at that size... it could take 2-3 months easily to replace a single failed drive!
Um no... it would take way longer. It took a 12 TB (total) RAID 5 a month and a half. It was successful, but omg no way for RAID 6 and especially not at that size.
-
The reality is, this is just unfeasible. Without a vendor giving hardware away (and providing an extended warranty) would this budget work.
And that's for any give component. The chassis, the drives, the MB (CPU and RAM)
-
@scottalanmiller the goal, at least described ever so briefly is for backup storage. (presumably if the production file server(s) take a dive). Those could be OBR5 for all we know.
Why is cloud backup not an option (besides because the boss said so)?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller the goal, at least described ever so briefly is for backup storage. (presumably if the production file server(s) take a dive). Those could be OBR5 for all we know.
Why is cloud backup not an option (besides because the boss said so)?
Because that many TB cloud storage is crazy expensive for an SMB. A lot of places give free storage for archive and such, but 100+ TB of actual usage would be insane cost wise. On-prem is way cheaper, tape is also way cheaper. At that size I'd only consider Wasabi, and even at 150TB, that's $30K per year.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
Why is cloud backup not an option (besides because the boss said so)?
Or the BIG question, why are disks being considered when tape is the logical or obvious "go to" for backups. Why did tapes get ruled out or skipped over?
-
@Obsolesce said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
At that size I'd only consider Wasabi, and even at 150TB, that's $30K per year.
Only about $12K. Still a lot, but not AS bad.
-
@Obsolesce said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
Because that many TB cloud storage is crazy expensive for an SMB.
Um. . . crazy expensive to compared to having your 1 and only working backup system die when you need it and then the business is done for?
At B2 the price is pretty flipping cheap per month.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@Obsolesce said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
At that size I'd only consider Wasabi, and even at 150TB, that's $30K per year.
Only about $12K. Still a lot, but not AS bad.
My bad, forgot to move the slider.
