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!
-
@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?:
These are 1^15 drives, would that be fine raid 10?
URE rates are not applicable in RAID 0 or RAID 1, and therefore not in anything based on them. URE is a risk for parity RAID.
Ok, makes sense. Would I want to configure as one large 24 drive array, or say, 2 x 12 disk arrays in the one box?
Size of the array doesn't matter very much since it is essentially all the same. Two smaller RAID 10s would just be more to manage. Your recovery domain is 14TB either way.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 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.
The disks are really slow compared to an SSD, so if you lost 1 disk your repair time for any parity array would take weeks if not longer.
Even with RAID10 it's going to be painfully slow.
Thats fine, as its backup area. Raid 10 looks to be the choice here. If a disk fails, the new disk will rebuild from its mirror/partner, so no calcs needed right?
Correct, mirrored RAID recovery is a copy operation.
-
@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!
Yeah, that is why I am checking before going ahead with anything
thanks Scott.Any particular vendor/hardware you would suggest? The 24 x array with 14TB drives is just in theory in my head at the moment, so - what tech would you suggest. Business is against using cloud here for this.
-
I'm based in the UK. My budget for this is around £12,000 - £15,000 with VAT. (That includes HDDs, NAS/Server/VAT/Delivery).
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
Any particular vendor/hardware you would suggest? The 24 x array with 14TB drives is just in theory in my head at the moment, so - what tech would you suggest. Business is against using cloud here for this.
Avoid all the standard names like HPE or Dell, because of drive issues. To keep your budget down you really need cheap SATA drives. So that means Western Digital drives. (Seagate isn't reliable enough for an array of any size.) Someone like SuperMicro and Huawei are going to be the vendors of choice on this. And you'll need software RAID for performance and cost effectiveness. And RAID 10 rules out Dell, too. Just worthless for hardware RAID when mirrored.
Hit up PCM UK and see what they can part out for you.
-
Anything like Synology NAS suitable here? Could look at 16 bay unit and one of their expansions...
Something like this for drive? https://www.ebuyer.com/858387-seagate-ironwolf-14tb-nas-hard-drive-3-5-sata-iii-6gb-s-7200rpm-256mb-st14000vn0008?mkwid=s_dc&pcrid=51482414339&pkw=&pmt=&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_fzYgvfm4QIVSFXTCh2fVQ0WEAQYASABEgI8ZPD_BwE
-
And obviously you need to run Linux on this. Fedora, Ubuntu, CentOS, Debian, Suse. You need MD RAID for protection, and a really good filesystem that can handle the size, XFS most likely.
ZFS and BtrFS will work, too.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
Anything like Synology NAS suitable here? Could look at 16 bay unit and one of their expansions...
Will it work? Yes. Will it be as cheap or powerful as making your own? Never. Synology and its ilk are good for two use cases...
- Where you need a chassis so small that no standard server comes that way and it is cheap due to the weird tiny form factor.
- Where no one knows how to install an OS and you need to operate without an IT team.
That's it. For anyone with IT to install an OS, Synology doesn't make sense, even though it is a decent product. You pay too much and get too little.
-
The Synology units I don't think I'd trust at this scale, granted this is for backup. But do you really want to drop ~$20,000 on hardware and not be 100% certain it'll work?
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
Something like this for drive? https://www.ebuyer.com/858387-seagate-ironwolf-14tb-nas-hard-drive-3-5-sata-iii-6gb-s-7200rpm-256mb-st14000vn0008?mkwid=s_dc&pcrid=51482414339&pkw=&pmt=&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_fzYgvfm4QIVSFXTCh2fVQ0WEAQYASABEgI8ZPD_BwE
That's a Seagate and the guys a Bad Hard Drive Utah will tell you, their failure rates are atrocious.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
The Synology units I don't think I'd trust at this scale, granted this is for backup. But do you really want to drop ~$20,000 on hardware and not be 100% certain it'll work?
Yeah, support would decrease and cost would blossom. The cost premium for a Synology at that scale would make no sense. All Synology does for you is do the Linux install and give you a web GUI. But Fedora has Cockpit already. So what are you gaining?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid/limits?:
And obviously you need to run Linux on this. Fedora, Ubuntu, CentOS, Debian, Suse. You need MD RAID for protection, and a really good filesystem that can handle the size, XFS most likely.
ZFS and BtrFS will work, too.
Not sure if this matters, but the target will be used by Windows Servers... would that make a difference here?
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
Not sure if this matters, but the target will be used by Windows Servers... would that make a difference here?
No, Windows just isn't up to the job. That the backups will talk over SMB is not really a factor, Synology is Linux, too. All enterprise storage options are Linux based (or BSD based) and use Samba as their interface layer. So it's really the only possibility.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid/limits?:
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
Not sure if this matters, but the target will be used by Windows Servers... would that make a difference here?
No, Windows just isn't up to the job. That the backups will talk over SMB is not really a factor, Synology is Linux, too. All enterprise storage options are Linux based (or BSD based) and use Samba as their interface layer. So it's really the only possibility.
Thats fine. I meant for the clients backing up to this target. They are Windows.
I'll take a look at SuperMicro and Huawei drives, and see what PCM say if I cant figure it out.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
I'll take a look at SuperMicro and Huawei drives,
Chassis.
Only WD makes drives for you.
-
Yep, i forgot the ',' lol
-
-
Something like: SC847E16-R1K28LPB on SuperMicro?
-
This is another drive that you could consider. 15TB optimized for sequential workloads.
