File Server Upgrade Options
-
@larsen161 said in File Server Upgrade Options:
Thoughts on a 45 Drives setup?
Not that great generally. For how Backblaze uses them they're good, but really not nearly so reliable as a normal server.
-
@larsen161 said in File Server Upgrade Options:
Thoughts on a 45 Drives setup?
Cheesy. Not for production use. Better than the B.B. Pods, but still not applicable to any SMB.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in File Server Upgrade Options:
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2016/10/smbs-must-stop-looking-to-backblaze-for-guidance/
How is that not in my list of reference links yet? Is now.
-
@travisdh1 said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller said in File Server Upgrade Options:
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2016/10/smbs-must-stop-looking-to-backblaze-for-guidance/
How is that not in my list of reference links yet? Is now.
One of those "it was repeated so many times on SW that it needed at article" articles.
-
@scottalanmiller said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@travisdh1 said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller said in File Server Upgrade Options:
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2016/10/smbs-must-stop-looking-to-backblaze-for-guidance/
How is that not in my list of reference links yet? Is now.
One of those "it was repeated so many times on SW that it needed at article" articles.
You have seen my collection of those, right?
Yes, I keep them all around for quick and easy referencing.
-
@scottalanmiller If you were building storage at the scale of something like a Backblaze pod, how would you do it?
Seems like I asked this one time before, but I forget.
-
@dafyre said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller If you were building storage at the scale of something like a Backblaze pod, how would you do it?
Seems like I asked this one time before, but I forget.
You wouldn't, it's that simple. The BB Pod is just one tiny piece of a giant cluster. It only works as it is because it's a disposal cog in a bigger machine. If you wanted just "a pod", you just... don't. It's a dumb idea. You should never have a single point of failure that freaking large. It is too much to back up and restore all at once.
You'd build a cluster of smaller storage devices, not a single monolithic one.
-
@scottalanmiller said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@dafyre said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller If you were building storage at the scale of something like a Backblaze pod, how would you do it?
Seems like I asked this one time before, but I forget.
You wouldn't, it's that simple. The BB Pod is just one tiny piece of a giant cluster. It only works as it is because it's a disposal cog in a bigger machine. If you wanted just "a pod", you just... don't. It's a dumb idea. You should never have a single point of failure that freaking large. It is too much to back up and restore all at once.
You'd build a cluster of smaller storage devices, not a single monolithic one.
So essentially, you are saying that unless you're doing something like Backblaze, there's no real reason to build something like this?
-
@dafyre said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@dafyre said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller If you were building storage at the scale of something like a Backblaze pod, how would you do it?
Seems like I asked this one time before, but I forget.
You wouldn't, it's that simple. The BB Pod is just one tiny piece of a giant cluster. It only works as it is because it's a disposal cog in a bigger machine. If you wanted just "a pod", you just... don't. It's a dumb idea. You should never have a single point of failure that freaking large. It is too much to back up and restore all at once.
You'd build a cluster of smaller storage devices, not a single monolithic one.
So essentially, you are saying that unless you're doing something like Backblaze, there's no real reason to build something like this?
That's what I've been saying for years. The BB Pod is an extremely specific purpose designed component of a larger system that has no reason to exist outside of that larger purpose. It is of zero value to anyone not using it for the purpose for which it is designed.
It's like looking at a 100TB RAID array of RAID 10 x 20 10TB drives and asking how to use a single 10TB drive without RAID in a server. Of course, the answer is you never do that. The 10TB SATA drives only make sense to use in production when part of the RAID 10 array. Remove the array, you remove their applicability. Same here. You can't just pull one cog out of a machine and wonder where to use it, it doesn't work that way.
-
@larsen161 said in File Server Upgrade Options:
Current Setup
Mac Pro (mid 2012) running macOS 10.12.5, 24GB, 2x 2.4GHz Xeon (no comments needed, we're moving forward)
A DS316JS with 2 equal sets of RAID5 in a 8 x 6TB config (same as above)
Connected via a Areca ARC-1883x RAID Card
Networked with a 6 port 1 Gbps NIC
Backed up to Backblaze ($5/mo)Goals
Run a 'proper' storage server OS
Migrate to more reliable RAID configuration
Upgrade storage capacity (expect to run out in March 2018)FreeBSD, RAIDZ2 single array. With combined arrays you'd be faster than the single, with RAID 6 you'll have more protection that the two RAID 5s. Capacity will be the same. Or buy a few more drives and go to RAIDZ3 right away.
Agree, SuperMicro for the win. Avoid gimmicky Pod-like devices.
-
Just noticed that there was a total of just two responses over where the other post was made.
-
Something that maybe I've missed, but is this sharing iSCSI, NFS, SMB? Not sure what the service being provided is.
-
@scottalanmiller said in File Server Upgrade Options:
Just noticed that there was a total of just two responses over where the other post was made.
Impressive
-
@scottalanmiller this would be an smb share. video content being edited by a team of editors
-
@larsen161 said in File Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller this would be an smb share. video content being edited by a team of editors
Seems like Gluster would be the approach to take, then.
