myblade

Yep, I know, there is only security for one failed drive. This is why I already thought about using Storage Spaces for Dual Parity, but this would drop the whole feature set of DP. In my whole life I have suffered only 2 failed drives. One due to a head crash caused by a speaker dropping on my pc while it was working and the other one I mentioned. I may have been lucky but the one The existing array consists of 4 disks and the new would also consists of 4 drives. This is due to the limitations of the enclosures. The single disks are internal and these arrays could consist of 3 drives each. Yep. Of course this can happen as it just did. It was one of my single drives and even drive bender does check SMART data, but it just died right away. Also any other redundancy solution is not safer than a kind of backup solution (like duplication). I just had a quick view on the page of snapRAID and it seems to keep the disks as they are, like DP and DB. They keep the NTFS as the file system and just add some features like parity on file system and application level, right? Maybe I should have a closer look. This may be the solution in combination with DP I seem to be looking for. But if it is so, I have to change the enclosure Then there is a better one with UASP for single drives

Thank you for your post. I did not mean the general information on RAID and stuff itself, but in the concrete use here in drivepool I've already read the other thread, but was unsure on applying it to my situation. But I understand the loss of functions when RAID is used. So the Scanner can not make use of the SMART information. And in case it should evacuate the drive this would effectively concern the whole array and thus leads to more free space required. My current situation is: - 1x 12 TB RAID5-Array - 2x Single 2TB disks - 2x Single 3TB disks My plan was/is: - Add a the new disks as a RAID5 array - Add 1 additional disks each size of 2TB/3TB to build (software) RAID5 arrays with the single disks -> Pool consisting of 4 RAID5-Arrays. Why this was my plan? I don't wanna use duplication, although this was already available in drive bender. The needed drives for doubling the space are far too expensive. So there is no security, but to rely on the scanner, when using single disks without RAID. In the past one drive suddenly died. There was no SMART notification or anything announcing the potential loss of my disk. Since I do not seem to be able to get the data of the disk again, this is what I want to avoid now. I see the Scanner as an additional help checking the disk, but with RAID-Arrays added to the pool, an automated evasion is hardly possible. This would need about 66-75% of the size of the biggest array in the pool as free space across the pool. If my enclosure dies I could replace it with a similar one. If a drive dies, I can swap it out. It surely takes its time to rebuild, but its better than the complete loss if the drive went fully broken in a sudden. Määäh... it seems that you have to pick your poison Thank you anyway

Hi, I am about to extending my pool with a new set of drives. In the past I moved from drive bender to this because 1 drive died / got stuck and I wanted to take advantage of the Scanner. So my current setup is a bunch of single disks and a RAID5 pool to prevent data loss of one drive, all added to one pool. I am now asking myself if it is still clever with drivepool and the scanner in place to build a second RAID5 drive with the new drives and add it to the pool or to keep it as a bunch of disks and rely on the scanner? Is there any advantage / disadvantage in using RAID5 for pooled drives or leaving them as a bunch of disks? I don't want to duplicate stuff, because this would lead to heavy requirements. At the moment I am at about 20TB for my media library and I don't want to double the required space With the new disks I would now be able to move the data off the RAID and reset them as a bunch of disks. This is why I am asking. Thank you in advance. Kind regs