| 1 |
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Bob Sanders <rsanders@×××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mark Knecht, mused, then expounded: |
| 3 |
>> Hi all, |
| 4 |
>> The list is quiet. Please excuse me waking it up. (Or trying to...) ;-) |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> I'm at the point where I'm a few months from running out of disk |
| 7 |
>> space on my RAID6 so I'm considering how to move forward. I thought |
| 8 |
>> I'd check in here and get any ideas folks have. Thanks in advance. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Beware - if Adobe acroread is used, and you opt for a 3TB home |
| 12 |
> directory, there is a chance it will not work. Or more specifically, |
| 13 |
> acroread is still 32-bit. It's only something I've seen with the xfs |
| 14 |
> filesystem. And Adobe has ignored it for approx. 3yrs now. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
acroread isn't critical to me but it does get used now and then so |
| 18 |
thanks for the heads-up. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
<SNIP> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> RAID 1 is fine, RAID 10 is better, but comsumes 4 drives and SATA ports. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Humm...I suppose I might consider building a 4-drive 1TB RAID10 from |
| 25 |
my existing 500GB RE3 drives, and then buy a couple of 2TB Red drives |
| 26 |
and do a RAID1 for data storage. If I did that I'd end up with 6 |
| 27 |
drives in the box, 4 of them old, but old ain't necessarily bad. ;-) |
| 28 |
However that forces me to manage what data goes where instead of just |
| 29 |
a big, flat RAID1 which is going to be easy to live with. Still, it |
| 30 |
would probably save some money. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
<SNIP> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> If you change, do not use ZFS and possibly BTRFS if the system does not |
| 35 |
> have ECC DRAM. A single, unnoticed, ECC error can corrupt the data pool |
| 36 |
> and be written to the file system, which effectively renders it corrupt |
| 37 |
> without a way to recover. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Thanks. No ECC and no real interest in doing anything very exotic. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> FWIW - a Synology DS414slim can hold 4 x 1TB WD Red NAS 2.5" drives and |
| 43 |
> provide a boot of nfs or iSCSI to your VMs. The downside is the NAS box |
| 44 |
> and drives would go for a bit north of $636. The upside is all your |
| 45 |
> movies and VM files could move off your workstation and the workstation |
| 46 |
> would still host the VMs via a mount of the NAS box. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
NAS is an interesting idea. I'll do a little study but my initial |
| 50 |
feeling is that it's more money than I really want to spend. Summer's |
| 51 |
coming. Time for Margaritas! |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Thanks, |
| 54 |
Mark |
Archives