4 ms·
How Do You Approach Multi-Disk Arrays?
Every 4-5 years I upgrade my home server. This year I've shifted to some nice rack-mounted hardware. At the core of my setup, I have two servers with 8 HDD bays each. One is the active box, and the other is local redundant storage (i.e., backup). Assuming 1 HDD is the system disk, how would you configure the other 7 HDDs to give you 1 massive storage volume in your favorite OS? Would you use the same approach on both the active and backup server?
- afics 14y agoI'd use zfs (consider freenas as your os, i like it) with raid-z3 (triple-parity, thus 3 drives may fail w/o data loss) on the remaining 7 drives. You then may use zfs snapshots + replication to the other machine or just use a cron job to wol the backup machine and simply run rsync at a certain interval.
- markmcb 14y agoThe zfs question is one I'm debating. I actually already use FreeNAS on the backup server and it seems to be doing well. For the primary server I want an OS I can do more with on, so I'd probably throw something like CentOS on it and then run VMs for specific tasks or to use more bleeding edge distributions. I suppose I could try zfs in Linux.
- migrantgeek 14y agoIt depends on what you value more. Do you want as much storage as possible and not care about redundancy? Then RAID 0 or JBOD would give you a lot of space. I wouldn't recommend it myself but it's an option. If you care about redundancy but want a good amount of space, you can go with a RAID 5. You'll lose some write performance especially if one of the drives crashes but you won't lose anything. I would recommend using 2 drives in a RAID 1 for OS and using the other 6 as a RAID 10 for storage. You'll get good performance and redundancy for both storage and the OS. For a more specific recommendation, more data is needed about your needs.
- markmcb 14y agoThanks. Yeah, I left it a little vague as to not sway any opinions. I definitely want at least minimal redundancy on both arrays just to ease the hassle of recovering from a disk failure. I guess I'm really trying to decide if hardware RAID is the way to go, or if letting a fast disk controller hand off the work to software (e.g., zfs) is a better option. Anyway, I'm just curious to hear what others are doing especially given all the "RAID is dying" talk that's popped up in the last few years.