File storage server

[pyrre]

I have two PCI pata controllers...
Will invest in some more... just to be sure.
However, as long as the PIII survives I'll always have a pata controller to extract files from pata disks...

[bloodline]

:lol: ok you tell me how to do it will with FFS, and...

motorollin wrote:

bloodline wrote:


:-D not sure how my little A1200 will cope with my assorted array of old HD's ranging from 30gig to 300gig... All soon to be formatted HFS+...

I will keep an old PATA->USB2 converter around should I need to recover any data stored on the drives...

Coward! :-P

[bloodline]

:lol: ok you tell me how to do it will with FFS, and...

motorollin wrote:

bloodline wrote:


:-D not sure how my little A1200 will cope with my assorted array of old HD's ranging from 30gig to 300gig... All soon to be formatted HFS+...

I will keep an old PATA->USB2 converter around should I need to recover any data stored on the drives...

Coward! :-P

[bloodline]

:lol: ok you tell me how to do it will with FFS, and...

motorollin wrote:

bloodline wrote:


:-D not sure how my little A1200 will cope with my assorted array of old HD's ranging from 30gig to 300gig... All soon to be formatted HFS+...

I will keep an old PATA->USB2 converter around should I need to recover any data stored on the drives...

Coward! :-P

[motorollin]

bloodline wrote:
:lol: ok you tell me how to do it will with FFS, and...

Ok! PCMCIA 802.11B card, AmiTCP and SAMBA server. Surely it couldn't be *that* slow and unreliable? ;-)

[bloodline]

motorollin wrote:

bloodline wrote:
:lol: ok you tell me how to do it will with FFS, and...

Ok! PCMCIA 802.11B card, AmiTCP and SAMBA server. Surely it couldn't be *that* slow and unreliable? ;-)

Well.. It's the only being able to use about 0.02% of the total drive space that would be the most concern :-)

[motorollin]

bloodline wrote:
Well.. It's the only being able to use about 0.02% of the total drive space that would be the most concern :-)

Can OS4 use more? Come on, we can do this! :-D :lol:

[Trev]

@pyrre

But that's the problem, isn't it? How do you effectively manage the available storage on those four 1.5TB disks? If you use something like GlusterFS, each disk's storage can be managed as an independent file system, and the cluster file system will make them appear as a single logical pool. GlusterFS requires a client, but you can use a client box to re-export the data as CIFS, NFS (barf), or whatever.

Personally, I would just eat the cost and create a simple disk array, probably RAID5. Keeping tack of smaller drivers is a serious pain in the ass, and I use virtualization rather than real hardware to explore new x86/x64 software. Right now, I have two 1TB disks in a mirror. Everything else is on a shelf. (The Amigas do their own thing, however, mostly with old and small 2.5" disks.)

[pyrre]

@ Trev

I have no economics now to purchase disks nor any controller.
That will have to come over time.
In the meantime i will have to coop with the diskspace i have in my main computer. And as soon as i can afford purchasing new disks i will expand my server.
For now i test out different operating systems and see what fits my needs.

Any Microsoft based OS is out of the question.

A Redhat derivative called open filer suits my needs as a file server. In open filer i can add as many disks as LVM will allow. and when i can afford new disks i can swap them at any time with any disk i wish. thus expanding the storage space.

And when i have enough disks to run raid i will convert the storage array into a raid. If i have to backup data i am not sure. Have not tested that option yet.
Need some help from a friend to do so...

EDIT:
Damn.. backup and reformat has to be done to convert to a raid... :-(

[Trev]

I didn't actually recommend Windows, although it can be used in a fashion similar to your requirements. (You also get discretionary access control lists on your file systems, which most Unix variants do not have.)

Doesn't Linux's LVM disable journaling in file systems that support it? I know you don't care about disk redundancy, but data integrity is still important, yes? Be sure to keep those systems on an uninterruptible power supply if you have one.

[pyrre]

@ Trev
Well...
cost considered, redundancy is not an issue for the moment.
when the server goes "online" i will start to save up funds to expand the storage.
But tree disks of 1.5 TB will be spared and as soon as i have a controller ready, it will be set up in a dynamic (read: expandable) raid 5.
In the meantime the storage amount i have is sufficient.
But i am trying out different operating systems. and my main concern is running and maintaining the OS...
As it looks right now, i have to get to learn a new os, linux...

[Trev]

When do you get around to using RAID, do it in hardware using an add-in card, preferrably with a battery-backed read/write cache. Metadisks provide software-based RAID, so your CPU is taking care of the disk geometry logic. If you do RAID in hardware, the controller takes care of everything, and the operating system just sees one or more logical disks. Array expansion is usually performed in software provided by the controller vendor, and the new space is seen by the operating system as additional unallocated space. Whether or not you can expand the file system is up to the file system itself.

Performance-wise, keep an eye on how your RAID disks are configured. Your block/stripe size should match your intended use, and bigger is not always better.