ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    I did a thing, have a quick Linux question

    IT Discussion
    linux xen xenserver hyper-v kvm
    13
    61
    7.5k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • wirestyle22W
      wirestyle22 @Sparkum
      last edited by

      @Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:

      @DustinB3403

      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?

      S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • DustinB3403D
        DustinB3403 @Sparkum
        last edited by

        @Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:

        @DustinB3403

        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.

        S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • S
          Sparkum @wirestyle22
          last edited by

          @wirestyle22

          I'd say 8-10TB

          wirestyle22W 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • wirestyle22W
            wirestyle22 @Sparkum
            last edited by wirestyle22

            @Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:

            @wirestyle22

            I'd say 8-10TB

            and how much total? Also how quickly are you going to expand?

            S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • S
              Sparkum @DustinB3403
              last edited by

              @DustinB3403

              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.

              wirestyle22W DustinB3403D 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • S
                Sparkum @wirestyle22
                last edited by

                @wirestyle22

                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.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • wirestyle22W
                  wirestyle22 @Sparkum
                  last edited by

                  @Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:

                  @DustinB3403

                  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.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • DustinB3403D
                    DustinB3403 @Sparkum
                    last edited by

                    @Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:

                    @DustinB3403

                    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.

                    S 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • S
                      Sparkum @DustinB3403
                      last edited by

                      @DustinB3403

                      My initial question was, is there a way to group harddrives in a non raid format. So yes, a fakeraid

                      DustinB3403D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • DustinB3403D
                        DustinB3403 @Sparkum
                        last edited by

                        @Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:

                        @DustinB3403

                        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.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • S
                          Sparkum @DustinB3403
                          last edited by

                          @DustinB3403

                          And maybe this is just me going from Windows to Linux, I admittedly don't know anything about how harddrives work in Linux

                          wirestyle22W 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • dafyreD
                            dafyre
                            last edited by

                            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.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • wirestyle22W
                              wirestyle22 @Sparkum
                              last edited by

                              @Sparkum said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:

                              @DustinB3403

                              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

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                              • DustinB3403D
                                DustinB3403
                                last edited by

                                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.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                • wirestyle22W
                                  wirestyle22
                                  last edited by wirestyle22

                                  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.

                                  scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • scottalanmillerS
                                    scottalanmiller @wirestyle22
                                    last edited by

                                    @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.

                                    wirestyle22W 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • wirestyle22W
                                      wirestyle22 @scottalanmiller
                                      last edited by wirestyle22

                                      @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.

                                      dafyreD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • dafyreD
                                        dafyre @wirestyle22
                                        last edited by

                                        @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.

                                        wirestyle22W 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • wirestyle22W
                                          wirestyle22 @dafyre
                                          last edited by wirestyle22

                                          @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.

                                          dafyreD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                          • dafyreD
                                            dafyre @wirestyle22
                                            last edited by

                                            @wirestyle22 said in I did a thing, have a quick Linux question:

                                            @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.

                                            True. The need for a hot spare is not quite as critical in RAID 1 as it would be in RAID 5 or 6... Can the fakeRAID controllers do anything other than 1 and maybe 5?

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 4
                                            • 2 / 4
                                            • First post
                                              Last post