* Re: raid 5 and different device size
2015-05-11 20:03 raid 5 and different device size Hendrik Friedel
@ 2015-05-11 20:13 ` Hugo Mills
2015-05-11 21:23 ` ronnie sahlberg
2015-05-12 0:22 ` Andrew E. Mileski
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Hugo Mills @ 2015-05-11 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hendrik Friedel; +Cc: linux-btrfs
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2646 bytes --]
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:03:32PM +0200, Hendrik Friedel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I need your advice for the following scenario:
> I do have three -identical- 3TB HDD. On these I store:
> -Backups (Images of my Families Laptop; Backup of the Machines (the
> one with the HDD) running System).
> -Videos (recordings, not essential)
> -HomeVideos (Familiy, essential)
> -Photos
> -Documents
>
> Now I intend to:
> * increase the available disc space
> * stop worrying how much space is available on which drive
> * create redundancy
> * have low operating cost (power-consumption)
>
>
> So, I need to buy one additional HDD.
> And I want to combine the drives to one big volume.
>
> I am aware that raid is no backup.
> Thus, I backup the HomeVideos and the Photos on an external drive
> not connected to the power supply and USB.
>
> I think, that I do not need raid5, depending on the definition of
> 'not essential'. Nevertheless, raid5 would efficiently (at low cost)
> decrease the likelyhood of loss of the 'non-essential' data.
> Furthermore, raid5 would fill the gap that I have between backups
> (the fact, that I do these backup manually means that I do not do
> them every day) and at least safe me from hardware failures.
>
> So, yes, I think I do want raid5 and I want to combine.
> But what size of HDD do I want to buy? The best value (cost per TB)
> I get for 3TB drives. So I could by two 3TB drives, one for
> additional space, the other for the parity information.
> Or I could by one bigger drive, with potentially lower power
> consumption. But how would the raid5 look in this case? I fear, only
> 3TB of the 6 would be redundant and the other 3 would be not
> redundant, right?
No, 3 TB of the new drive would be usable, giving you a grand total
of (4-1) * 3TB = 9 TB of usable space on the array, with 3 TB of raw
space unusable (the remainder of the 6 TB device).
http://carfax.org.uk/btrfs-usage may be helpful to you here.
> Now the last point: Power consumption: Under which conditions can
> the drives spin down in case of raid5? I assume that all drives have
> to run as in case the data is written on any one of the drives,
> right?
> Is that also true during reading of data, i.e. is the parity also
> checked for read operations?
Parity is spread evenly across all devices, so a read of more than
a trivial quantity of data would almost certainly spin up all devices
anyway.
Hugo.
--
Hugo Mills | A gentleman doesn't do damage unless he's paid for
hugo@... carfax.org.uk | it.
http://carfax.org.uk/ |
PGP: E2AB1DE4 | Juri Papay
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: raid 5 and different device size
2015-05-11 20:03 raid 5 and different device size Hendrik Friedel
2015-05-11 20:13 ` Hugo Mills
@ 2015-05-11 21:23 ` ronnie sahlberg
2015-05-12 0:22 ` Andrew E. Mileski
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: ronnie sahlberg @ 2015-05-11 21:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hendrik Friedel; +Cc: Btrfs BTRFS
For that kind of data where you mainly store lots of (big?) files but
rarely modify the files once stored,
I would suggest using snapraid it is mor stable and reliable than
current btrfs raid5 state.
And it allows you to to go to raid6 and beyond as your data and
redundancy factors grow.
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Hendrik Friedel <hendrik@friedels.name> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I need your advice for the following scenario:
> I do have three -identical- 3TB HDD. On these I store:
> -Backups (Images of my Families Laptop; Backup of the Machines (the one with
> the HDD) running System).
> -Videos (recordings, not essential)
> -HomeVideos (Familiy, essential)
> -Photos
> -Documents
>
> Now I intend to:
> * increase the available disc space
> * stop worrying how much space is available on which drive
> * create redundancy
> * have low operating cost (power-consumption)
>
>
> So, I need to buy one additional HDD.
> And I want to combine the drives to one big volume.
>
> I am aware that raid is no backup.
> Thus, I backup the HomeVideos and the Photos on an external drive not
> connected to the power supply and USB.
>
> I think, that I do not need raid5, depending on the definition of 'not
> essential'. Nevertheless, raid5 would efficiently (at low cost) decrease the
> likelyhood of loss of the 'non-essential' data.
> Furthermore, raid5 would fill the gap that I have between backups (the fact,
> that I do these backup manually means that I do not do them every day) and
> at least safe me from hardware failures.
>
> So, yes, I think I do want raid5 and I want to combine.
> But what size of HDD do I want to buy? The best value (cost per TB) I get
> for 3TB drives. So I could by two 3TB drives, one for additional space, the
> other for the parity information.
> Or I could by one bigger drive, with potentially lower power consumption.
> But how would the raid5 look in this case? I fear, only 3TB of the 6 would
> be redundant and the other 3 would be not redundant, right?
>
>
> Now the last point: Power consumption: Under which conditions can the drives
> spin down in case of raid5? I assume that all drives have to run as in case
> the data is written on any one of the drives, right?
> Is that also true during reading of data, i.e. is the parity also checked
> for read operations?
>
> Thanks for your advice in advance,
> Hendrik
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> http://www.avast.com
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: raid 5 and different device size
2015-05-11 20:03 raid 5 and different device size Hendrik Friedel
2015-05-11 20:13 ` Hugo Mills
2015-05-11 21:23 ` ronnie sahlberg
@ 2015-05-12 0:22 ` Andrew E. Mileski
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew E. Mileski @ 2015-05-12 0:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hendrik Friedel, linux-btrfs
On 11/05/15 04:03 PM, Hendrik Friedel wrote:
> I do have three -identical- 3TB HDD.
>
> Now I intend to:
> * increase the available disc space
> * stop worrying how much space is available on which drive
> * create redundancy
> * have low operating cost (power-consumption)
>
> So, I need to buy one additional HDD.
> And I want to combine the drives to one big volume.
>
> I am aware that raid is no backup.
> Thus, I backup the HomeVideos and the Photos on an external drive not
> connected to the power supply and USB.
In my experience, people tend to GREATLY undervalue their data, until it
is lost!
Your proposed 12 TB (4x3TB) of storage is > 10^14 bits, so you are very
likely to to encounter an unrecoverable sector on a full-read with most
typically error-rated drives.
Also consider drive wear (average lifespan of 3 years), spares, and how
you will deal with a single or multi-drive failure.
You may want to rethink your plan, and the value of your data.
> Now the last point: Power consumption: Under which conditions can the
> drives spin down in case of raid5? I assume that all drives have to run
> as in case the data is written on any one of the drives, right?
> Is that also true during reading of data, i.e. is the parity also
> checked for read operations?
In RAID-5/6, parity is only checked when an error or failure is reported
by the drive. This can lead to undetected errors from "bit rot". Hence
regular scrubbing (reading of all data) is recommended.
Note that BTRFS checksums data, and verifies data read, so even if the
drive doesn't detect an error BTRFS is likely to, but BTRFS can't
recover without additional redundancy.
Personally, I use BTRFS formatted with "-mdup -dsingle" on top of either
hardware RAID-6 (primary array) or software RAID-5 (backup array), so I
don't really rely upon BTRFS for recovery.
Most external consumer-grade enclosures are best used with "Green"
drives, which tend to be 5400 RPM max, as these enclosures often have
very limited cooling. Make sure your drives are compatible with the
enclosure.
I have even seen server-grade rack enclosures with reduced temperature
ratings when using 7200 RPM or faster drives. Heat and vibration are
important considerations with arrays.
I prefer Seagate enterprise drives and WD consumer drives.
Note that WD "Red Label" drives are identical to their "Green Label"
drives, except "Red Label" drives have time-limited error recovery
(TLER) firmware for use in arrays. However, it is possible to increase
the error timeout in Linux, so even non-TLER drives can be used in
arrays, but it isn't as convenient nor recommended. Both are
error-rated 1 unrecoverable sector in 10^14 bits read.
~~Andrew E. Mileski
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread