Older RAID controller and new drives

[BachOn]

_________________________________

I bought two Hitachi 2TB 5400 drives. Put them on my wife's Windows 7 (64 bit) machine, did the format and they both created a single partition and did a quick format. Did them one drive. Removed, put in the next one. It all went slicker than snot on a doorknob. I was plenty happy.

The plan is to put these in a Network Server. I'm still debating about FreeNAS or Windows Home Server. But I wanted to test them in a RAID 1 configuration.

This server is to be installed in a 3.4 Ghz Pentium 4 running on an Abit IC7 MAX 3 motherboard. This motherboard has an onboard RAID controller. It is a Silicone Image SIL3114 SATA RAID Controller. This is, of course, an older board. I had updated the operating system from Windows XP to Vista Home Ultimate (32 Bit). I was trying to determine if the controller could handle the 2 terrabyte drive partitions.

I went into the BIOS and activated the RAID controller. I connected just one of the formatted drives (no OS installed).

So the machine starts to boot. I see the citation for the RAID controller. I see the Hitachi drive. Then there is a message to hit Ctrl I to setup RAID.

I press that. Nothing happens. The machine just hangs there.

Now this motherboard also takes IDE drives. The operating system is running off an IDE drive.

The Hitachi drives are 6Gb/sec capable. The motherboard controller is not. I think it will only do 1.5Gb/sec. But the drives should be backward compatible.

Before I tinkered around too much I thought I'd ask for a little input so I don't have to re-invent the wheel.

I have not upgraded BIOS or RAID drivers, though I'm going to explore the options.

Anyone have some suggestions? An add-on 6Gb RAID controller looks like it will cost over $100. I've spent a lot of dough lately on my computer hobby. Hate to spend more right now. I did see a few on eBay for under $40. But I'd rather buy something with a warranty if I do have to buy.

Help!!!

Bach On

 

[Automata]

Why did you format the drives if you are going to put them in a RAID array? It destroys the information on the disk(s) when you create the array.

Does the RAID controller go into the BIOS without any disks connected?

If you are going to go with FreeNAS, there is no need to setup RAID through anything other than the operating system.

 

[BachOn]

Why did you format the drives if you are going to put them in a RAID array? It destroys the information on the disk(s) when you create the array.

Does the RAID controller go into the BIOS without any disks connected?

If you are going to go with FreeNAS, there is no need to setup RAID through anything other than the operating system.

I wanted to see if the drives were OK and that they would format at their full size.

I was finally able to get the RAID 1 setup going with the two drives on the machine. That's the good news.

The bad news is that Vista (run from the old drive on the machine) does not allow me to use the RAID 1 array.

I did not think FreeNAS supported RAID 1 without a controller. Did I misread that?

BO

 

[Automata]

I don't run ZFS, but you should be able to create a two drive RAIDz1 pool. It isn't RAID 1, however.

 

[BachOn]

Well, it appears that I'm going to be stuck with a slower SATA 1 interface with this Abit IC7 Max3 motherboard. It only has IDE and SATA 1 connections. The SATA 1 only transfer data at 1.5 Gb speeds. (It's has a 3.4 Ghz. Pentium 4 CPU installed.)

I've been exploring an add-on card. But it appears that the add-on cards that will provide SATA 3 (6Gb) all require PCI Express cards. This motherboard only has the older PCI slots. The AGP is an Accelerated Graphics Port connector that supports AGP PRO 8X/4X Interface. I might be able to get SATA 2 (3 Gb). But that seems doubtful.

I'm beginning to think this means I'm going to have to have a better motherboard to run my 6 Gb drives at their full rated interface speed.

Anybody know of any work-arounds for this situation? I've already bought the drives. This project has started to become more complicated (and expensive) than I wanted it to be.

I've determined that FreeNAS may not be the right tool for my needs. Windows Home Server 2011 may be a better choice. It now costs just short of $60. And the add-on to address adding hard drives is about another $20. But those nickels and dimes start to add up. Know what I mean?

BO

 

[Automata]

If those are mechanical drives, SATA 1 isn't going to slow them down as it has a theoretical max speed of 187.5 MB/sec.

What are you trying to do with this system? Have you considered a simple Linux install and using mdadm for RAID?

 

[BachOn]

I'm an old DOS guy. I started computing before Windows. But I'm not familiar with Linux. And it is harder to learn new languages for me now. WHS 2011 looks like it will be a better choice.

What am I going to do? Mostly backups for four networked Windows machines. But that could change once I get things setup.

BO

 

[BachOn]

If those are mechanical drives, SATA 1 isn't going to slow them down as it has a theoretical max speed of 187.5 MB/sec.

These are mechanical drives. Am I understanding you to say that the drives cannot keep up with a SATA 2 or SATA 3 interface? This is news to me.

BO

 

[Automata]

The SATA 1 interface is more than enough bandwidth for those hard drives, correct.

The only drives that benefit from SATA 2/3 are solid states drives.

 

[Mr Alpha]

If those are mechanical drives, SATA 1 isn't going to slow them down as it has a theoretical max speed of 187.5 MB/sec.

More like 143 MiB/s, but the point still stands for this drive. Some high-end hard drives do saturate SATA I.

 

[BachOn]

After doing a little more research, I've decided to use UNRAID for my backup storage. They have three versions of the program. The free one allows up to three drives. To increase the number of drives, you get one of the paid versions: the Plus version is $59; the Pro versions is $119. I decided to start with the free one.

I'll load the program on a flash drive and boot the machine with it.
Then I'll have three 2 Terabyte drives running in that computer. These are actually controlled by the UNRAID program. One of the drives is called the parity drive. The other two drives are called the data drives. (Yes, this is a vast over-simplification of the actual process.) This allows for 4 terrabytes of backup storage. If one drive fails, it can be replaced. Then the system rebuilds the drive array. Failure of two drives is a whole 'nuther story, but should be less likely.

The drives can be any size or interface. I can even mix SATA and/or IDE drives in any combination. The only rule is that the parity drive must be at least the same size or larger than the largest of the other drives I have on that machine. This program does not depend on the onboard RAID controller on my motherboard. Machines on the network would simply see one big drive on the machine - much like a RAID array.

I ordered another Hitachi drive last night. I'm figuring the system won't be super fast. But it looks like it should provide a reliable method for backing up our four network computers.

I'm going to use FBackup for doing the actual backups. It's freeware. And it looks like it does what I need it to do. If not, there are some Plan B choices.

BO

 

[BachOn]

One more thing: maybe my thinking is wrong, but since the backups will be made over our home network I figure the speed of the network connection may be more of a limiting factor on speed than the SATA 1 connections for the three UNRAID drives.

The UNRAID machine will have a wired network connection through a 100 Mb. card direct to the router. One other machine will also be wired direct to the router. The other two machines will be connected via wireless network NICs. One machine has a 100 Mb network card. The other is a 50 Mb. connection. Three of the machines will have 500 Gb. drives to backup. The computer with the smallest drive (150 Gb.) is the one with the slower network card.

BO

 

[Automata]

Can you clarify on your network cards? 100 megabit or megabyte? If the former, you are limited to ~12.5 megabytes/second transfer speed, so the network will absolutely be your limit.

Also, I've never seen a "50 Mb" network card.

 

[BachOn]

My bad. I stand corrected; the wireless card is a 10/100 Ethernet, 802.11a/b/g Wi-Fi.

BO

 

[Automata]

Ok, wireless, got it.

All that will be limited heavily by your network. That isn't going to stress the server at all. I would suggest upgrading to a gigabit network when you get the chance (if you need the speed).

 

[cw823]

I don't run ZFS, but you should be able to create a two drive RAIDz1 pool. It isn't RAID 1, however.

2drive mirror is the only option for ZFS, you need 3drives for RAIDZ (raid5) and 4drives for RAIDZ2 (raid6)

I've determined that FreeNAS may not be the right tool for my needs. Windows Home Server 2011 may be a better choice. It now costs just short of $60. And the add-on to address adding hard drives is about another $20. But those nickels and dimes start to add up. Know what I mean?

BO

What was the determining factor here?

After doing a little more research, I've decided to use UNRAID for my backup storage. They have three versions of the program. The free one allows up to three drives. To increase the number of drives, you get one of the paid versions: the Plus version is $59; the Pro versions is $119. I decided to start with the free one.

I'll load the program on a flash drive and boot the machine with it.
Then I'll have three 2 Terabyte drives running in that computer. These are actually controlled by the UNRAID program. One of the drives is called the parity drive. The other two drives are called the data drives. (Yes, this is a vast over-simplification of the actual process.) This allows for 4 terrabytes of backup storage. If one drive fails, it can be replaced. Then the system rebuilds the drive array. Failure of two drives is a whole 'nuther story, but should be less likely.

The drives can be any size or interface. I can even mix SATA and/or IDE drives in any combination. The only rule is that the parity drive must be at least the same size or larger than the largest of the other drives I have on that machine. This program does not depend on the onboard RAID controller on my motherboard. Machines on the network would simply see one big drive on the machine - much like a RAID array.

I ordered another Hitachi drive last night. I'm figuring the system won't be super fast. But it looks like it should provide a reliable method for backing up our four network computers.

I'm going to use FBackup for doing the actual backups. It's freeware. And it looks like it does what I need it to do. If not, there are some Plan B choices.

BO

Parity drive also MUST be the fastest drive, 7200rpm if you can.

 

[BachOn]

2drive mirror is the only option for ZFS, you need 3drives for RAIDZ (raid5) and 4drives for RAIDZ2 (raid6)



What was the determining factor here?



Parity drive also MUST be the fastest drive, 7200rpm if you can.

Home Server 2011 left off some features that have reduced its flexibility. I'm certain it is a good product. But it offers features I'm not sure I need. And since I'm new to setting up a server, the inability to move folders around is an issue for me.

FreeNAS appears to be a pretty good product. But I'm totally inexperienced in Linux code. I also believe the program is in a transition phase. The older 7.x products were written by the original creator. They have fewer bugs. The 8.x versions have been written by a newer team - without input from the original creator. At least some of the reviews I've read are that 8.x has bugs here and there. My understanding is that a newer version is in development that will make significant improvements over the current version - and hopefully address the bugs. But nobody can say when these might be ready.

I may be wrong. But I don't think the parity drive MUST be faster. A slower drive will still work. But you are correct that the speed of the entire system will suffer with a slower parity drive. A 7200 rpm drive will be better, aka: faster.

BO

 

[cw823]

Home Server 2011 left off some features that have reduced its flexibility. I'm certain it is a good product. But it offers features I'm not sure I need. And since I'm new to setting up a server, the inability to move folders around is an issue for me.

FreeNAS appears to be a pretty good product. But I'm totally inexperienced in Linux code. I also believe the program is in a transition phase. The older 7.x products were written by the original creator. They have fewer bugs. The 8.x versions have been written by a newer team - without input from the original creator. At least some of the reviews I've read are that 8.x has bugs here and there. My understanding is that a newer version is in development that will make significant improvements over the current version - and hopefully address the bugs. But nobody can say when these might be ready.

I may be wrong. But I don't think the parity drive MUST be faster. A slower drive will still work. But you are correct that the speed of the entire system will suffer with a slower parity drive. A 7200 rpm drive will be better, aka: faster.

BO

Google any documentation on unraid, it will tell you the parity drive should be the fastest and largest drive.

Ultimately ZFS is imho the safest FS out there, so that's where I looked for a NAS OS. I settled on OpenIndiana, and haven't looked back.

 

[jason4207]

I've been using unRAID since '08 and it's been rock-solid. Good move IMO.

My parity drive is a 2TB 5400rpm drive. I do have a 1TB 7200rpm drive in the system. The parity drive doesn't have to be the fastest spinning drive, but you should do some things to ensure the I/O to the parity drive isn't hampered.

Move Parity Drive Off PCI Bus

If possible, ensure that your Parity drive is not sharing an IDE channel or the PCI bus or a Port Multiplier channel. For best write speed, move it to the fastest unshared connection. For best overall performance, it should be connected to the fastest SATA II port. Normally, onboard SATA ports are the fastest, then SATA II ports on the PCI Express bus. It does not have to be the fastest drive, but for best performance, it should be a SATA II drive. For best configuration, see the Improving unRAID Performance#Experiment with Hard Drive Config section below.

http://lime-technology.com/wiki/index.php/Improving_unRAID_Performance


And this quote from one of the unRAID gurus:

A fast parity drive will only help you if you write to multiple drives simultaneously. If you use a cache drive, it won't make any difference at all.

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=8301.0

I definitely recommend moving to a Gb network if possible.

 

[BachOn]

What version of unraid are you using? I tried to setup my 4 Gig Flash drive to run 4.7. But I haven't hit the right combination yet.

I'm going to have three identical 2TB drives. Alas, they are all 5400 rpm units. My plan is to backup computers across a network. I'm thinking the network will be more of an inhibitor of speed than the drives.

BO
'