windows raid choices

[Samus512 2]

I have a raid 1 set up with 2 18tb drives. I'm at the point where I have to increase storage. which raid options should I choose for best read speed for my users? I will be adding 2 more 18tb drives. 

[MBSki 1046]

Personally I think the best choice is StableBit DrivePool. StableBit - The home of StableBit CloudDrive, StableBit DrivePool and the StableBit Scanner

It's much easier to manage than any RAID options. You can duplicate files, allow either of the duplicated files to be read for better performance, and you can add discs of any size at any time.  

[andrewds 98]

2 hours ago, MBSki said:

Personally I think the best choice is StableBit DrivePool. StableBit - The home of StableBit CloudDrive, StableBit DrivePool and the StableBit Scanner

It's much easier to manage than any RAID options. You can duplicate files, allow either of the duplicated files to be read for better performance, and you can add discs of any size at any time.  

Agreed. Downside is no parity built in. Deploying SnapRAID isn't difficult but it can be a little complex to understand.

I use SnapRAID+DrivePool+backup personally. Replaced traditional RAID with them. Won't be going back.

[MBSki 1046]

DrivePool allows you to duplicate files and spreads them across multiple discs. Isn't that basically the same as parity? 

[andrewds 98]

It's not, no. DrivePool's file duplication will use a lot more space than a parity calculation. If you want to protect a full disk's worth of files using DrivePool duplication you'll need another entire disk like in a mirrored RAID setup. Parity calculation uses a fraction of that. I have two parity disks in an 8 disk pool for double parity, but I could store parity for all of the disks in the pool with only a single disk.

That being said I also use DrivePool's file duplication because some things I don't want to have to wait for a parity rebuild to access again. It's an excellent feature.

[MBSki 1046]

19 minutes ago, andrewds said:

It's not, no. DrivePool's file duplication will use a lot more space than a parity calculation.

Ah, gotcha. Yea, that's a downside for sure. Luckily disk space is relatively inexpensive.

[rbjtech 4376]

So for largely TB's of static media, I chose the path of no duplication at all - it's just a waste of powered up spinning disk imo.   I keep the 'duplicate' as a backup instead - offline - on older lower capacity disks (the ones that were being upgraded..).  Not only is this far faster in the case of needing to restore, but it will also protect you from accidental deletion, ransomware and of course it consumes no power as it's totally offline.   You get to keep 100% of your disk as drivepool space  as well ..   Peroidically, I just update the last 'backup' disk with the 'delta' to ensure I always have a full backup.  

For non-media files (ie non-static), then yes, I use DivePool duplication - but that's a few hundred gig tops - so really not an issue.

The primary issue with parity with multi-TB RAID sets, is it will take days/weeks or longer to restore from parity - and it will hammer the existing disks in doing so and degrade their performance.   RAID with parity for huge archive type storage is just not recommended - there are a lot more suitable solutions these days imo.

Edited July 4, 2023 by rbjtech

[MBSki 1046]

@rbjtechHow do you just save the delta? I know there are tons of backup software solutions, just wondering how you do the delta backup and if it's free. Right now I do a full backup every time.

 

[rbjtech 4376]

3 hours ago, MBSki said:

@rbjtechHow do you just save the delta? I know there are tons of backup software solutions, just wondering how you do the delta backup and if it's free. Right now I do a full backup every time.

 

I use SyncBack Pro - it just compares the previous backup to what's 'new'.  Any half decent backup software is going to use the Archive Attribute of the files (as a bare minimum) to determine what was previously backed up - there should be no need to do a backup of everything each time ! 

[MBSki 1046]

Cool, thanks. I'll check it out.

[Miguelsaaa 0]

On 7/4/2023 at 10:16 AM, rbjtech said:

Entonces, para la mayoría de los TB de medios estáticos, elegí el camino de no duplicación en absoluto: en mi opinión, es solo un desperdicio de disco giratorio encendido. Mantengo el 'duplicado' como una copia de seguridad en su lugar, fuera de línea, en discos más antiguos de menor capacidad (los que se estaban actualizando). Esto no solo es mucho más rápido en el caso de necesitar restaurar, sino que también lo protegerá de la eliminación accidental, el ransomware y, por supuesto, no consume energía ya que está totalmente fuera de línea. También puede mantener el 100% de su disco como espacio en el grupo de discos. Peroique, simplemente actualizo el último disco de 'copia de seguridad' con el 'delta' para asegurarme de que siempre tengo una copia de seguridad completa.

Para archivos que no son multimedia (es decir, no estáticos), entonces sí, uso la duplicación de DivePool, pero eso es unos pocos cientos de gigas como máximo, por lo que realmente no es un problema.

El principal problema con la paridad con conjuntos RAID de varios TB es que se tardará días/semanas o más en restaurar desde la paridad, y al hacerlo afectará a los discos existentes y degradará su rendimiento. RAID con paridad para un almacenamiento de tipo archivo enorme simplemente no se recomienda: en mi opinión, hay soluciones mucho más adecuadas en estos días.

For example, what solution?
I have a server with 360 TB with Raid 60
What option would you recommend for so many areas and not depend on parity, which is slow and at times unsafe?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 18 by Miguelsaaa

[RanmaCanada 362]

3 hours ago, Miguelsaaa said:

For example, what solution?
I have a server with 360 TB with Raid 60
What option would you recommend for so many areas and not depend on parity, which is slow and at times unsafe?

 

 

 

 

 

At that size I would recommend multiple ZFS pools, ie, NOT windows.