TBCS 5TB club

[The_Crippler]

Okay, I'm a little late to the party, but I've been away for awhile. Seems that there is some flexibility to the rules. Going with the "spread across machines," oh yeah - I'm there.

But, I like the spirit of the "all in one machine." My media server has 4 1TB drives in a RAID arrangement, so only 3TB are in use. How are we scoring that?

That box also has several smaller drives in there - so I could just slap one of my spare 500GB drives in there to put it over the top if we'll count the RAID as 4TB.

[x88x]

We're counting usable space for total capacity. I'm assuming you run a RAID5 configuration? In that case your usable capacity would be, what, a little under 2.7TB? (Taking into account the decimal/binary conversion.) That's why my capacity is 6.8TB, not 9TB (6x 1.5TB ... +4GB..but that doesn't really count ).

I meant to clarify this earlier, but what I meant for 'spread across several machines' was if it is accessible as a unit. For example, for a while I had 4 file servers all cheap little machines, connections maxed out, with drives mounted and mapped between them so that when I accessed the central node I could access all of them as a single logical unit.

[The_Crippler]

I meant to clarify this earlier, but what I meant for 'spread across several machines' was if it is accessible as a unit. For example, for a while I had 4 file servers all cheap little machines, connections maxed out, with drives mounted and mapped between them so that when I accessed the central node I could access all of them as a single logical unit.

Ooooooh, well that's a horse of a different color. Then again, I do have the drives of all my Linux machines mapped to the central machine, so I might still be able to calculate something out.


Curse you and your rules.

[x88x]

Curse you and your rules.

Heheheh. Dance puppets, DANCE!

[The_Crippler]

Hon? Can I buy two more 1.5TB drives? Why? Uh....'cause I want them?

*mutter, grumble*

Fine. I didn't wanna be in your stupid club anyway.

[x88x]

Hahaha. There have been a lot of 2TB drives dropping down into the $120-$130 range recently...

[NightrainSrt4]

I don't see why redundancy can't count for this, even if usable capacity is under the limit. Those who are using redundancy could just toss the array and snap a pic with all drives, giving the max capacity.

Those concerned with the safety of their data shouldn't be at a disadvantage in getting into the club imo, as they could waste hours tossing raid, snapping the pic, just to put it back together again. 5TB is 5TB, it shouldn't matter if the capacity is being used for duplication, parity, or just plain data. I do agree with the one system concept though.

I'm at 4.5TB now, but half that is redundant by my choice. Going to be tossing 1TB into a different rig though, but hopefully can break the entry barrier soon with some new drives. Just been waiting for the right size/price.

[x88x]

I don't see why redundancy can't count for this, even if usable capacity is under the limit. Those who are using redundancy could just toss the array and snap a pic with all drives, giving the max capacity.

Those concerned with the safety of their data shouldn't be at a disadvantage in getting into the club imo, as they could waste hours tossing raid, snapping the pic, just to put it back together again. 5TB is 5TB, it shouldn't matter if the capacity is being used for duplication, parity, or just plain data. I do agree with the one system concept though.

My club, my rules. The whole point is 5TB unique usable storage. It doesn't matter that I have 1.3TB 'lost' to parity (and 1.2TB 'lost' to binary conversion). I can't put unique data in that storage space, so it doesn't count. Besides, if someone is gonna go to all the trouble of disassembling their array and posting false results, I think they're just going against the spirit of the thing. ...besides, how many people have the extra storage space to cache everything from that large an array while they do that? If they did, they would probably have more than 5TB usable anyways, between that array and wherever they're caching the data.

Thinking on this though, I guess this does kinda penalize people doing redundancy or parity (imo) properly (ie, RAID, not the software juggling that WHS does). Hmm.. Ok, how about this:

If using WHS's 'duplication' feature, the 'duplication' amount doesn't count toward to total, because like with parity and mirror drives, it can never contain unique data.

So, for example, slaveofconvention would have 5.0TB, not 5.34TB.

That should even things out.

[NightrainSrt4]

That it is. =). I just don't see why those who choose redundancy/parity get penalized. 5TB is 5TB, how the user divides it up is up to them. Whether they stuff it with copies of what they have on another drive, parity data, pron, games, dvds, linux distros, random 1's and 0's, free space, shouldn't matter. That's just my view though, and as it is your club, I shall speak no more of it =P.

[crenn]

Current usable data: 5.43TB over 3 drives ;P
Will later be doing RAID 10.