p3x-749

...just to chime in here...remember that expanders have firmware too.
I am running 1x M1015 + 1x RES2SV240 in my 24bay rig for 5+ years now....I remember that there was a firmware update for my expander that improved stability with S-ATA drives (which is the standard usecase for the majority of the semi-pro users here, I think).
Upgrading the firmware could be done with the same utility as for the HBA, as far as I remember...instructions were in the firmware readme
Edit: here's a linbk for a howto: https://lime-technology.com/forums/topic/24075-solved-flashing-firmware-to-an-intel-res2xxxxx-expander-with-your-9211-8i-hba/?tab=comments#comment-218471
regards,
Fred

...just to chime in here...remember that expanders have firmware too.
I am running 1x M1015 + 1x RES2SV240 in my 24bay rig for 5+ years now....I remember that there was a firmware update for my expander that improved stability with S-ATA drives (which is the standard usecase for the majority of the semi-pro users here, I think).
Upgrading the firmware could be done with the same utility as for the HBA, as far as I remember...instructions were in the firmware readme
Edit: here's a linbk for a howto: https://lime-technology.com/forums/topic/24075-solved-flashing-firmware-to-an-intel-res2xxxxx-expander-with-your-9211-8i-hba/?tab=comments#comment-218471
regards,
Fred

OK, this is strange, maybe someone can clarify a bit...
 
I did a file move (using explorer, doing cut&paste) of a bunch of files.
The move was from one folder into another, inside the pool drive.
-> that was an instantaneous action , as expected.
 
A couple of minutes later, I moved the same files into another folder of the pool
-> this time, the whole bunch of 90+MBytes gets actually copied 
 
...both actions were done locally, only working with the pool drive.
What is going on here, I don't understand that kind of behavior ?
 
regards,
     Fred

I am almost sure, I am missing something here, but since DP is working so flawlessly in general, I cannot recall if what I see is a problem from my side of the keyboard or from DP.
 
Did an upgrade to 2.2.0.798 BETA to solve a problem with being unable to temporarily remove a good drive from the pool, as stated elsewhere here in the forums.
 
After that, DP (re-)gathered all data and everything looked well.
Now, a couple of days and reboots later, I am seeing the effect, that some files are not accessible from the pool.
Explorer sees them, but opening gives an Error, that the file is not there.
 
I normally don't use the native drives, just the pool...after enabling the disks and accessing the pool-part folders directly, the files are there and can be accessed, as expected.
However, the problem with accessing the files via the Pool persists.
 
I issued the command to re-gather the pool information manually, several times to no avail.
Since when I enabled the native disks with drive letters, a large part is now shown as "other" instead of duplicated/non-duplicated...don't know if this is related though.
 
...what is the recommended procedure to get DP up to the correct state and functioning again?
 
I am on Win10-Pro 64bit BTW.
 
TIA,
 
Fred

...a single client connection will not benefit from a teamed link...only multiple concurrent clients will, i.e. a 2xGbit teamed link will give each client up to a full 1xGbit link at the same time

Thanks for the fast response.
 
Well, as this is my system volume, a chkdsk /f and /r is deferred upon the next restart.
I've done that already (with /f only) with no effect....will redo with /r and report back.
However, I don't ave access to the system console output of that early booting stage...I am running a server board with IPMI and an extra GPU card for desktop...IPMI GPU is deactived  hence... the system boots basically headless.
 
Edit: the deferred run of "chkdsk c: /f /r " seems to have fixed it...re-scanned the FS with scanner and it reports as being healthy now.

Just be aware that the stock M1015 does *not* come with IR or IT Firmware, it comes with a "true" RAID card firmware.
Flashing it with the IT/IR firmware is a "cross flash"....there is a risk that you can produce a brick during that process.
 
The M1015 is a true, low-end IBM Raid Controller, but technically identical to the 9210 HBA, only sold to OEMs,
There is another HBA model, the 9211 and luckily its firmare is compatible with the 9210.
You can force the 9211 Firmware to be flashed to the M1015, creating a 9210 (or 9211 respectively), hence.
 
If you buy a M1015 from a dealer "at the bay", some do offer it cross flashed already.
 
I own a couple, crossed flashed myself.
Since this "trick" was made public, prices for the M1015 have risen a lot.
If you want to play save, buy a "real" LSI HBA or a pre-cross flashed M1015.
Note: once cross flashed, you can swap IR/IT firmware anytime, just like with a normal 9211 HBA, using the normal flash method advertised by LSI.

+1 for the HBAs based on M1015...these are great.
And you can grow later by adding an expander, instead more HBAs.
 
But...what drive sizes do you employ at the moment?
With drive capacity rising fast the money per TB ratio is falling.
There is as well the solution to just replace drives with larger ones and even sell the used ones afterwards.
Saving on the controller and the energy, too.

...backups are not needed, really.
 
All recordings are stripped from ads and then get stored on my NAS automagically.
The only data that comes with some hassle to reconstruct from scratch is the channel list and sorting of these into programme numbers.
But the idea with kvm is still the best...but because of the space left in the attic, I need some kvm-over-ip gear...I'll be scanning the bay ;-)
 
Again, many thanks for your support and second thoughts...I really appreciate this!

...IMHO this is definitely the right strategy.
As per your choice of the 1830...I don't know where you are located, but over here in Germany,
the 1840 is approx 30% cheaper than the 1830...I'd go with the CPU that offers the best/most features in its datasheet for your budget.
The 1840 offers "clear HD video" when compared to the 1830, for example.

-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcoding
 
One example is when you want to stream your BluRay material to a device that is not capable of
playing it natively, like your 1280x768 tablet.
Transcoding means to convert the codecs (video and/or audio) from source to desired/supported destination formats.
 
...you can do that "offline", meaning to store different versions of your media for each player...this will take time and a faster CPU helps, but eventually
you'll finish the jobs and the only thing you really need is disk-space.
Some people are in for doing this live, on-the-fly, which means you need a really beefy CPU for this.
A famous application that supports this is Plex...and having a beefy Socket-1150v3 or Socket-2011 quad+ core XEON really helps here.
 
...but for streaming material "raw" (when the client device can handle it natively), this is not needed.
You can create digital "backups" of your media, like from your dvds or blurays.
.... don't know if it is legit to do so for copy protected material in your jurisdiction though...there are apps that help in the process, like AnyDVD or makemkv.
This is *not* transcoding (as the codecs auf audio/video stay the same, what changes is the container, like from avi to mkv, only)...the speed of the optical drive is usually the limit...CPU performance is not an issue here.
 
You can "shrink" (transcode) the material to create smaller media files to stream later with apps like handbrake...these usually work offline.
I don't do this on my server but on my (XEON based) workstation...server just holds/stores the data, as disk space is getting cheaper and cheaper
...and this saves a lot of energy 

I agree, the PSU will add the lowest amount to your bill, but a PSU too large will be inefficient...depending on where you live, energy may not come cheap.
A PSU should be running at its 20% nominal wattage when the system is idle in order to achieve the 80Plus mark.
 
If this is for a server, why not going for a server board?
I agree the ASUS is nice, but with 10 disks, you will have to add another HBA.
What about the Supermicro X10SL7-F...it comes with a LSI 2308 on-board...this combo is a bargain, but you will need to run ECC RAM and a XEON.
 
As for Plex...how many clients do you need to support concurrently?

Just check with your synology's manual if iSCSI is supported.
The NAS will be the iSCSI target and you will have to set it up / configure it there.
Your Windows machine will be using that iSCSI disk(s) on your NAS with the use of the iSCSI initiator application (which is available as standard from win7 onwards).
There are many howtos available on the net.

...I am actually not certain that this can be achieved at all.
IMHO drivepool will build the pool on physical disks and only after that you can enable duplication on the pool.
In order to incorporate the NAS, I doubt that drivepool will allow you to build a pool with a network share in it.
The only way of using resources on the NAS, that I can think of, is using it as an iSCSI target and importing that iSCSI disk into your windows system with the iSCSI initiator.
Then drivepool should see it as a physical disk. However, that data will not be shared by the NAS in order to be seen by others.
 
What is your usecase behind that?
 
When using this for duplicating a virtual machine config and its virtual disks, I think there is a lot of risk that the duplicated copy of a virtual disk will be unusable.
This risk exists independent of the way on how you copy it (manually or by means of drivepool duplication with/without matching disks speeds)
The normal way of operating this, AFAIK is to create a VM-snapshot. When you are able to locate the snapshots in an other directory, you should be able to duplicate these safely
and use these to recreate the VM resume state later in case of a crash of the VM 

I don't think you should go that route and combine these two things.
 
It is however not uncommon to use an external datastore for hosting VM disks, like via NFS.
If your NAS is available at the time you need to run the VMs and if the NAS performance over wire is enough (with link aggregation and RAID on the NAS there are possibilities that are within the range of a consumer SSD)
you could for example use the iSCSI target method and exclusively move the VMs to the NAS...freeing up all two local disks in your RAID1 VM-datastore

By being a "kind of waste", I was referring to their original purpose.
These cards, being originally a "real" RAID type are only entry level in this domian.
And using the RAID driver in JBOD mode with DrivePool or in software raid *is* a waste and a risk, too.
 
Well...cheap times are long over.
Especially the M1015 was shipped as the standard card with all IBM X-Servers...but all enterprise customers did rip them out, replaced them in their servers and sold the parts as crap in the bay.
I remember buying a pair of two, brand new in their boxes, for 70USD...good old times.
Since the word is out that these can be cross-flashed to a HBA, they became the best known secret and prices went through the roof.
Same is now for the Dell models...the Fujitsu is the youngest secret as of today...maybe there are some deals waiting ahead.

For a FileServer with many spinning drives, always go for a single 12V-Rail PSU.
One single disk drive will eat up 2+ Amps on the 12V rail when performing a cold start.
 
ATX standard actually requires a PSU to be dual rail, but for this purpose a single rail is recommended...no need for doing any maths...just connect an go.
 
You will find the no. of rails in the specs of the PSU.
If this information is not listed, you can determine it from the Output-Amps given on the spec plate.
Like a non-single-Rail PSU will advertise the output per Rail, like "12V1-22A, 12V2-18A" for a dual-rail....a single Rail PSU will not have the 12V rail-output numbered, like stating "12V-40A" as in this example.